10. § 10. Special Revelation.

10. § 10. Special Revelation.

§ 10. Special Revelation.

A. Means of special revelation.

. History teaches that no religion has enough with general revelation.

The Christian religion too appeals to a special revelation. Scripture is the book of the revelatio specialis. The words with which it expresses the concept of revelation are chiefly these: גלה to discover, ni. to be discovered, to show oneself, to appear, to be revealed, Gen. 35:7; 1 Sam. 2:27, 3:21;

Isa. 53:1, 56:1; Hos. 7:1, etc. ראה to see, ni. to be seen, to show oneself, to appear, to shine, Gen. 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, etc.; ידע to know, ni. pi. hi. hithp. to make known, to instruct, Num. 12:6; ἐπιφαινειν to appear Luke 1:79; Tit.

1:11; subst. ἐπιφανεια, appearance, especially of Christ in his return 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Tit. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:10 of Christ's first coming; ἐμφανιζειν to make manifest, visible, pass. to show oneself, to appear Mt. 27:53; John 14:21, 22; γνωριζειν to make known Luke 2:15;

Rom. 9:22; Eph. 3:3, 5, 10; δηλουν to make known 1 Petr. 1:11; 2 Petr.

1:14; δεικνυναι to show John 5:20; λαλειν to speak Heb. 1:1, 2:2, 5:5; but especially also ἀποκαλυπτειν and φανερουν. Both words are not to be distinguished as subjective, inward illumination and objective, outward appearance or disclosure, as Scholten, L. H. K. 4e dr. I 165 v. 299. Dogm.

Christ. Initia I 26 sq. thought: for ἀποκαλυπτειν is repeatedly used of objective revelation Luke 17:30; Rom. 1:17, 18, 8:18; Eph. 3:5; 2 Thess.

2:3, 6, 8; 1 Petr. 1:5, 5:1. Nor does the distinction lie in this, that φανερουν denotes God's general revelation in nature, and ἀποκαλυπτειν the special revelation of grace, Neander, Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der christl.

Kirche [245] durch die Apostel, 5te Aufl. Gotha, Perthes 1862 S. 131 f. for φανερουν is many times used of the special revelation John 17:6; Rom.

16:26; Col. 1:26; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10, etc.; and ἀποκαλυπτειν occurs in Rom. 1:18 also of the general revelation. A constant difference in the use of both words can hardly be indicated in the N. T. But etymologically ἀποκαλυπτειν indicates the removing of the covering by which an object was hidden, and φανερουν the making public of a matter that was hidden or unknown. With the first, therefore, the emphasis falls on removing the hindrance that prevented the knowing of what was hidden; on the mysterious character of that which until now was not perceived; and on the divine act that removed that covering and made the mystery understood.

The second word indicates in general that something which was hidden and unknown has now become manifest and has come into the light.

Ἀποκαλυψις removes the cause by which something was hidden; φανερωσις makes the matter itself manifest. Connected with that is that φανερωσις is always used of objective, ἀποκαλυψις of both objective and subjective revelation; that φανερωσις more than once denotes both the general and the

special revelation, but ἀποκαλυψις mostly always the special and only a single time the general. And both words are then again distinguished from γνωριζειν and δηλουν in such a way that the first two cause the things to come into the light, bring them under observation, and the last two, as a consequence of that, now also make them into content of our thinking consciousness. Cf. Dr. F. G. B. van Bell, Disput. theol. de patefactionis christianae indole ex vocabulis φαν. et ἀποκ. in libris N. T. efficienda 1849.

Niermeyer, Gids 1850 I 109-149. Rauwenhoff, The independence of the Christian 1857. Cramer, Jaarb. v. wet. Theol. 1870 pp. 1-70. Cremer,

Wörterbuch s. v. Herzog2 12, 654. Voigt, Fundamentaldogm. 201 f. Van Leeuwen, Prol. van Bijb. Godg. 41 v.

The Christian religion therefore agrees with all historical religions in this, that it appeals to revelation. But the agreement extends still further, even to the forms and ways in which the revelation takes place. All means of revelation can be reduced to a threefold division. In the first place, religious faith demands a God who is near and not far away [246] Hd. 17:27; it was therefore at all times convinced of the appearance of the gods in one form or another, under one sign or another, in one place or another. Holy places, holy times, holy images are found in almost every religion. The gods are not like human beings and do not live with them on an equal footing; the profane sphere is separated from the sacred; but the gods nevertheless dwell with and among human beings in definite places, in particular objects, and communicate their blessing at definite times. Idolatry, taken in the broadest sense, was born out of the need for a God who is near, Ch. de la Saussaye,

Lehrb. der Rel. gesch. I 54 f. 114 f. In the second place, all religions have as their own the belief that the gods in one way or another reveal their thought and their will, whether through human beings as their organs, such as

soothsayers, oracles, dreamers, inquirers of the dead, seers of spirits, etc., or artificially and externally through the stars, the flight of birds, the entrails of the sacrificial animals, the play of the flame, the lines of the hand, the accidental opening and falling open of a book, etc., μαντικη, divinatio.

Nemo vir magnus sine afflatu divino unquam fuit, Cic. de nat. deor. 2, 66, cf. Cicero de divinatione, Plutarchus, de defectu oraculorum, A. BouchéLeclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquité, 4 vol. 1879-82.

Saussaye t. a. p. 93 f. And finally, in all religions the belief is present in special intervention and help of the gods in times of need; widely spread is magic, i.e. that art by which human beings, with mysterious means, holy words, formulas, amulets, drinks, etc. make the divine power serviceable to themselves and bring wondrous effects to appearance, Ennemoser, Gesch. der Magie, 2e Aufl. Leipzig 1844. Alfr. Maury, La magie et l'astrologie dans l'antiquité et au moyen-âge 1860. Lenormant, Les sciences occultes en

Asie, 2 vol. 1874-'75. Saussaye ib. Theophany, mantic, and magic are the ways by which all revelation comes to the human being. This general religious belief in appearance, prediction, and miracle is certainly not, in any case not exclusively, to be explained from deception or demonic operation, nor also from unfamiliarity with the order of nature, but is a necessary element in all religion. The religious need seeks satisfaction; and where it does not find this in a real revelation of God that meets it, it seeks it in the way of ἐθελοθρησκεια. It takes into service those mysterious powers in the human being himself or outside him in nature, which can bring him into rapport with a supernatural world. Superstition is the bastard form of true religion. Superstition is the caricature of the πιστις. The contemporary phenomena of spiritism, theosophy, telepathy, magnetism, hypnotism, etc. serve as proof of this, and perhaps also show that in the so-

called night-side of human nature powers lie hidden which can effect a more immediate rapport with a supersensible world and in any case can sufficiently explain the belief in such rapport, without the hypothesis of intentional deception etc. There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy (Shakespeare). Cf. art. Modern

Superstition in Tijdspiegel Jan. 1895. Holy Scripture seems not to deny all reality to such phenomena, Gen. 41:8; Ex. 7:8; Deut. 13:1, 2; Mt. 7:22,

24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; 2 Tim. 3:8; Apoc. 13:13-15. But religion in O. and N.

T. decidedly wants to have nothing in common with all these religious phenomena. It stands over against them in principle. It neither recognizes nor tolerates them, it forbids them most emphatically Lev. 19:26, 31, 20:27;

Num. 23:23; Deut. 18:10, 11; Hd. 8:9, 13:6, 16:16, 19:13 v.; Gal. 5:20; Apoc. 21:8, 22:15. Prophets and apostles protest against it most strongly, in order not to be placed on the same line with the pagan soothsayers and sorcerers. There may sometimes, e.g. in the appearances to the patriarchs, be agreement of form, but there is difference in essence. Theophany, mantic, magic are, like sacrifice, temple, priesthood, cultus, etc., essential elements in religion. They therefore occur in all religions, also in that of Israel, and in Christianity. The Christian religion also has its sacrifice Ef.

5:2, its priest Hebr. 7, its temple 1 Cor. 3:16, etc. The distinction between Christianity and the other religions does not lie in this, that all these necessary elements of religion are lacking there, but is situated herein, that all that occurs in Paganism in caricature, in Israel has become shadow and image, and here has become true, spiritual reality. Thereby it can be explained that Israel's religion on the one hand in form, circumcision, sacrifice, tabernacle, priesthood, [248] etc. shows so much agreement with the pagan religions and on the other hand is distinguished from them in

principle, so that only from Israel the Messiah has proceeded. This principled distinction lies herein, that in Holy Scripture the initiative in religion is not taken by the human being, but by God. In the pagan religions it is the human being who seeks God, Hd. 17:27; he tries in all kinds of ways to cause God to descend to him, and drags Him down into the dust

Rom. 1:23; he attempts by all kinds of means to obtain power over God.

But in Scripture it is always God who seeks the human being. He creates him after his image. He calls him after the fall. He preserves Noah. He chooses Abraham. He gives to Israel his laws. He calls and equips the prophets. He sends his Son. He sets apart the apostles. He will one day judge the living and the dead. Ethnicism teaches us to know the human being, in his restlessness, in his misery, in his discontent, and also in his noble aspirations, in his eternal needs; the human being both in his poverty and his riches, in his weakness and in his strength; Ethnicism cultivates its noblest fruit in humanism. But Holy Scripture teaches us to know God in his coming to and seeking of the human being, in his compassion and grace, in his justice and his love. But theophany, prophecy, and miracle are also here the means by which God reveals and gives himself to the human being,

Oehler, Ueber das Verhältniss der altt. Prophetie zur heidn. Mantik 1861. Id.

Altt. Theologie 1882 S. 29 f. 753 f. Tholuck, Die Propheten u. ihre Weissagungen 1860 § 1. Staudenmaier, Encycl. § 231 f. § 271 f. Schultz,

Altt. Theologie, 4e Aufl. Göttingen 1889 S. 226 f.

2. Theophany (Angelophany, Christophany). Repeatedly in Holy Scripture there is mention of an appearance of God; sometimes without any further description, Gen. 12:7, 17:1, 22, 26:2, 24, 35:9; Ex. 6:2, cf. also Gen. 11:5;

Ex. 4:24, 12:12, 23, 17:6; Num. 23:4, 16; 1 Sam. 3:21; 2 Sam. 5:24; but elsewhere in the dream, Gen. 20:3, 28:12 v. 31 vs. 24; 1 Kon. 3:5, 9:2; or

also in the prophetic vision, 1 Kon. 22:19 v. Jes. 6. Ezech. 1:4 v., 3:12 v., 8:4 v., 10:1 v., 43:2 v., 44:4; Am. 7:7, 9:1; Dan. 7:9 v. Luk. 2:9; 2 Petr. 1:17; and more frequently still in clouds of smoke [249] and fire as signs of his presence; thus to Abraham, Gen. 15:17 v., to Moses, Ex. 3:2, 33:18 v., on Sinai, Ex. 19:9, 16 v., 24:16, cf. vs. 9-11, Deut. 5:23, 9:15; Hebr. 12:28, over the people, Ex. 13:21 v., 14:19-24, 40 vs. 38; Num. 9:21, 14:14; Deut.

1:33; Neh. 9:12, 19; Ps. 78:14, above the tabernacle, Ex. 33:9, 40:34 v. Lev.

9:23; Num. 9:15-23, 11:17, 25, 12:5, 17:7, 20:6; Deut. 31:15; Ps. 99:7; Jes.

4:5, and in the holy of holies Ex. 25:8, 22, 29:45, 46; Lev. 16:2, 26:11, 12; Num. 7:89, cf. also still to Elijah 1 Kon. 19:11 v. These appearances presuppose no corporeality of God, Ex. 20:4, 33:20; Deut. 4:12, 15, but are sensibly perceptible signs, by which his presence becomes knowable, just as the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost makes himself known by wind and fire. In connection with that, one is also not to think of an emanation of this cloud from the divine Being, but of a presence of God revealing itself in creaturely forms. In those signs the divine glory, ָּכבֹוד, δοξα, becomes manifest, Ex. 16:20, 24:17; Lev. 9:6, 23, 24; Num. 14:10, 16:19, 20:6; and therefore that glory is also described as a consuming fire Ex. 24:7; Lev.

9:23, 24 and as a cloud 1 Kon. 8 vs. 10, 11; Jes. 6:4. But God appears not only in impersonal signs; also in personal beings he visits his people.

Surrounded and served by many thousands of angels Jes. 6 vs. 2, 6, he sends these in human form to this earth, in order to make his word and will known. They already occur in Gen. 18, 19, 28:12, 32:1, 2; Deut, 33:2; Job

33:23; 1 Kon. 13:18 and have according to Hd. 7:53; Gal. 3 vs. 19 also served at the giving of the law, but they are mediators of revelation especially after the Exile, Dan. 8:13, 9:11, 10:5; Zach. 1:7-6:5. Still more often they appear in the N. Test.; they are present at the birth of Jesus, Mt.

1:20, 2:13, 19; Luk. 1:11, 2:9, repeatedly in his life, Joh. 1:52; Mt. 4:6, at his suffering, Mt. 26:53; Luk. 22:43, at his resurrection and ascension, Mt.

28:2, 5; Luk. 24:23; Joh. 20:12; Hd. 1:10. In the history of the apostles they occur repeatedly Hd. 5:19, 8:26, 10:3, 11:13, 12:7, 23:9, 27:23; Apoc. 22 vs. 6, 16. And at his return Christ is accompanied by the angels Mt. 16:27,

25:31; Mk. 8:38; Luk. 9:26; 1 Thess. [250] 3:13 etc. Among all these messengers of God the מלאך יהוה occupies a special place. He appears to Hagar, Gen. 16:6-13, 21:17-20; to Abraham, Gen. 18, 19, 22, 24:7, 40; to Jacob, Gen. 28:13-17, 31:11-13, 32:24-30 cf. Hos. 12:4; Gen. 48:15, 16; to and in the time of Moses, Ex. 3:2 v. 13:21, 14:19, 23:20-23, 32:34, 33:2 v. cf. Num. 20:16; Jes. 63:8, 9, and further still Jos. 5:13, 14; Richt. 6:11-24,

13:2-23. This Malak Jhvh is not a dependent symbol, nor also a created angel, but a personal, adequate revelation and appearance of God, distinguished from him, Ex. 23:20-23, 33:14 v.; Jes. 63:8, 9, and yet one with him in name Gen. 16:13, 31:13, 32:28, 30, 48:15, 16; Ex. 3:2 v., 23:21;

Richt. 13:1, 2; in power Gen. 16:10, 11, 21:18, 18:14, 18; Ex. 14:21; Richt.

6:21; in redemption and blessing, Gen. 48:16; Ex. 3:8, 23:20; Jes. 63:8, 9; in worship and honor, Gen. 18:3, 22:12; Ex. 23:21. After the deliverance from Egypt the Malak Jhvh withdraws. God dwells among his people in the temple 1 Kon. 8:10 v.; 2 Chron. 7:1 v.; Ps. 68:17, 74:2, 132:13 v., 135:21.

Thither the soul's longing of Israel's pious ones goes out, Ps. 27:4, 42, 43, 48, 50, 63:3, 65, 84, 122, 137. But this theophany is imperfect. God does not dwell in a house made with hands 1 Kon. 8:27; Jer. 7:4; Mich. 3:11; Hd.

7:48, 17:24. Into the holy of holies only the high priest was permitted to go once a year. The theophany in the O. T. does not yet reach its end and its goal. Therefore yet another and more glorious coming of God to his people is still expected, both for deliverance and for judgment, Ps. 50:3, 96:13; Jes.

2:21, 30:27, 40 v. passim. Mich. 1:3, 4:7; Zeph. 3:8; Joel 3:17; Zach. 2:10 v.; 14:9. The Angel of the covenant appears again in the prophecy Zach.

1:8-12, 3; and will come to his temple Mal. 3:1. The theophany reaches its summit in Christ, who is the ἀγγελος, δοξα, εἰκων, λογος, υἱος του θεου, in whom God has been fully revealed and fully bestowed, Mt. 11:27; Joh.

1:14; 14:9; Col. 1:15, 2:19, etc. Through him and the Spirit, whom he sends out, the dwelling of God among and in his people already now becomes true, spiritual reality Joh. 14:23; Rom. 8:9, 11; 2 Cor. 6:16. The congregation is the house of God, the temple of the H. Spirit, Mt. 18:20; 1

Cor. 3:16, 6:19; [251] Ef. 2:21. But also this indwelling of God in the congregation of Christ is not yet the last and highest. It reaches its full realization only in the new Jerusalem. Then the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people and God himself will be with them and be their God. They will see his face and his name will be on their foreheads, Mt. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:28; 1 Joh. 3:2; Openb.

21:3; 22:4. Cf. art. Theophany and Schechina in Herzog2. Art. Wolkenu.

Feuersäule in Winer, Bibl. Realwört. Trip, Die Theophanieen in den Geschichtsbüchern des A. T. Leiden 1858 and the literature cited there.

Schultz, Altt. Theol. 4e Aufl. 1889 S. 507 f. Oehler, Altt. Theol. 2te Aufl.

1882 S. 195 f. Smend, Lehrb. der altt. Religionsgeschichte 1893 S. 42 f.

Weber, System der altsynag. palästin. Theologie, Leipzig 1880 S. 179 f.

Cremer, Wörterb. s. v. δοξα. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol., 2e Aufl. 1861 S. 49 f.

Keerl, Die Lehre des N. T. von der Herrlichkeit Gottes, Basel 1863. Van Leeuwen, Bijb. Godg. 72 v.

3. Prophecy. By prophecy we here understand the communication by God of his thoughts to man. Often the name of inspiration is used for this; and to that extent also more correct, inasmuch as the concept of prophecy is

broader than that of inspiration and also includes the proclamation of those thoughts to others. But inspiration is, on the basis of 2 Tim. 3:16, used especially of the written revelation. And the word prophecy was formerly more than once used in our sense, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 171 art. 1. It also includes the receiving of the thoughts of God, because a prophet is only he who proclaims God's word. And it brings out better than inspiration the intention of God, with which He communicates his thoughts, viz. that man himself be a prophet, a proclaimer of his virtues. The thoughts of God now, which are communicated in prophecy, can have reference to the past, as in the historical books of Scripture, or to the present, or to the future. But always prophecy sets the thoughts of God over against those of men, his truth over against their lie, his wisdom over against their folly. This communication of God's thoughts to man can according to Scripture take place in various ways. Sometimes God himself speaks in an audible way, in human voice [252] and language, Gen. 2:16, 3:8-19, 4:6-16, 6:13, 9:1, 8 v.,

32:26 v.; Ex. 19:9 v.; Num. 7:89; Deut. 5:4; 1 Sam. 3:3 v.; Mt., 3:17, 17:5; Joh. 12:28, 29. In many places God is represented as speaking, without further description of the manner in which that speaking took place, outwardly or inwardly, in dream or vision, etc. The most intimate character is borne by this speaking of God with Moses, who neither is frightened nor falls down when God speaks to him, but with whom God spoke mouth to mouth, and associated as a friend with his friend, Num. 12:6-8; Ex. 33:11,

34:29; Deut. 5:5, 18:15, 18; 2 Cor. 3:7; Gal. 3:19; Hebr. 3:5. Cf. Thomas S.

Theol. II 2 qu. 174 art. 4. Witsius, de proph. I 7. Episcopius, Instit. Theol.

III 2. The Jews later spoke of a Bath-Kōl, a heavenly voice, by which God revealed himself; but this stood lower than the earlier prophecy, and had come after the spirit of prophecy had ceased, Weber, System der altsyn. pal.

Theol. 187, Herzog2 2, 130. But often God, in the communication of his thoughts, attaches himself to those lower forms, under which also among the Heathen the gods were thought to make their will known. There is then in the form an almost complete agreement. To that belong especially the lot, the Urim and Thummim, the dream and the vision. The lot was used on many occasions, on the great day of atonement Lev. 16:9, in the division of the land, Jos. 13:6, 14:2 etc., Neh. 11:1; of the Levitical cities, Jos. 21:4; of spoil Joel 3:3; Nah. 3:10; Ob. 11; of garments, Mt. 27:35; Joh. 19:23; in decision in difficult cases, Jos. 7; 1 Sam. 14:42; Spr. 16:33, 18:18; Jon. 1:7; in election to an office, 1 Sam. 10:19; Hd. 1:26; 1 Chron. 24:5; Luk. 1:9, etc.; also the ordeal, Num. 5:11-31 can be reckoned herewith, Herzog2 8

762. The Urim and Thummim, LXX δηλωσις και ἀληθεια, Vulg. doctrina et veritas, light and right, occur 7 times Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21;

Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65. The U. and Th. are not identical with the 12 precious stones on the breastplate of the high priest, as Josephus Ant. III, 8, 9 and many after him suppose, but were according to Ex. 28:30 and Lev. 8:8 objects that were hidden in the breastplate, Philo,

Vita Mosis 3. But how they made God's will known, by glittering of the stones, [253] by a voice, by inspiration, etc., and also in what they consisted, in two stones with the tetragrammaton, or in little images, or in a necklace made of precious stones, or in stones for casting lots, is wholly unknown. The last opinion has in more recent time received support in the text of 1 Sam. 14:41 altered by Thenius 1842 according to the LXX. The U. and Th. would then have been lots with yes and no and also have been used

Judg. 1:1, 20:18; 1 Sam. 22:10, 15, 23:6, 9-11, 30:7 v.; 2 Sam. 2:1, 5:19, 23.

But in that case there are answers, not of yes and no, but of long description and digression Judg. 20:27; 1 Sam. 30:7 v.; 2 Sam. 5:23, 21:1; Judg. 1:1,

20:18; 2 Sam. 2:1, especially 1 Sam. 10:22b; 2 Sam. 5:23; 1 Chron. 14:14, not well to be explained. The U. and Th. nevertheless certainly did belong to a same category of revelation as the lot; they occur especially in the time of Solomon and then seem to make way for prophecy proper. Cf. art. U. and Th. in Herzog2. Winer Realwört. Riehm, Wörterb. Keil, Archaeol. § 35. De

Wette-Räbiger, Archaeol. S. 281 f. Oehler, Altt. Th. S. 334 f. Schultz, Altt.

Th. 257 f. Dosker, Presbyt. and Ref. Rev. Oct. 1892 p. 717 etc.

Subsequently, dreams occur in Holy Scripture as a means of revelation.

For that they were held throughout all antiquity, Homer, Od. 19:560 v. Il.

1:63, 2:22, 56. Aristotle, περι της καθ' ὑπνον μαντικης. Cicero, de divinatione 1:29. Philo, de somniis, etc. Herzog2 15:733. And even now great value is attached to dreams by many, Splittgerber, Schlaf und Tod, 2e

Aufl. 1881 I 66-205. Now at all times one knew that dreams were also very deceptive. Homerus Od. 19:560 v. Arist. t. a. p., and also Holy Scripture repeatedly points to the vanity of dreams Ps. 73:20; Job 20:28; Jes. 29:7;

Pred. 5:2, 6; Sirach 31:1 v., 34:1 v.; and often ascribes them to the false prophets Jer. 23:25, 29:8; Mich. 3:6; Zach. 10:2. But yet God repeatedly makes use of dreams to make his will known, Num. 12:6; Deut. 13:1-6; 1

Sam. 28:6, 15; Joel 2:28 v.; they occur among Israelites, but also more than once among non-Israelites Gen. 20, 31, 40, 41; Richt. 7; Dan. 2, 4 and contain either a word, a communication of God, Gen. 20:3, 31:9, 24; Matth.

1:20, 2:12, 19, 22, 27:19; or a representation of the imagination, which then often [254] needs explanation Gen. 28. 37:5, 40:5, 41:15; Richt. 7:13; Dan.

2, 4. Literature, with Herzog2 15:734. G. E. W. de Wijs, The dreams in and outside the Bible 1858. Witsius, de proph. I cap. 5.

With the dream the vision is related Gen. 15:1, 11; 20:7; Num. 12:6.

Already the names ֹרֶאה‎, ‏ ֹחֶזה‎, ‏ָנִביא and perhaps also ֹצֶפה with which the

prophet is named, Kuenen, De Profeten I 49, 51 v. 97. Id. Godsd. v. Isr. I 212. Id. Hist. Cr. Ond. II2 5 v. König, Der Offenbarungsbegriff I 71 f.

Delitzsch, Genesis3 634. Schultz, Altt. Th. 239. Smend, Lehrb. 79 f., and the names ַמְרֶאה and ָחזֹון for the prophetic sight probably indicate that the vision was a not uncommon means of revelation. But these words have often lost their original meaning and are also used when there is no proper sight any longer taking place, 1 Sam. 3:15; Jes. 1:1; Ob. 1; Nah. 1:1, etc.

Visions are repeatedly mentioned and described in Scripture, from Genesis on down to the Apoc. Gen. 15:1, 46:2; Num. 12:6, 22:3, 24:3; 1 Kon. 22:1723; Jes. 6, 21:6; Jer. 1:24; Ezech. 1-3, 8-11, 40; Dan. 1:17, 2:19, 7, 8, 10;

Amos 7-9; Zach. 1-6; Matth. 2:13, 19; Luk. 1:22, 24:23; Hd. 7:55, 9:3, 10:3, 10, 16:9, 22:17, 26:19; 1 Cor. 12-14; 2 Cor. 12:1; Apoc. 1:10, etc. The vision was many times accompanied by a certain spiritual rapture. Music, dance, and ecstasy go together; prophecy and poetry are related, 1 Sam.

10:5 v., 19:20-24; 2 Kon. 3:15; 1 Chr. 25:1, 25; 2 Chr. 29:30. When the hand of the Lord falls upon the prophets, Jes. 8:11; Ezech. 3:14, 11:5, or the Spirit comes upon them, they many times come into a state of rapture Num.

24:3; 2 Kon. 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:5, and fall to the earth Num. 24:3, 15, 16; 1 Sam. 19:24; Ezech. 1:28, 3:23, 43:3; Dan. 10:8-10; Hd. 9:4; Apoc.

1:17, 11:16, 22:8. In that state the thoughts of God are given to them to see or to hear in symbolic form. In images and sights his counsel is revealed to them Jer. 1:13 v., 24:1 v.; Am. 7-9; Zach. 1-6; Apoc., etc.; especially concerning the future, Num. 23 v.; 1 Kon. 22:17; 2 Kon. 5:26, 8:11 v.; Jer.

4:23 v., 14:18; Ezech. 8; Am. 7, etc. They also hear in that state all kinds of voices and sounds, 1 Kon. 18:41; 2 Kon. 6:32; Jes. 6:3, 8; Jer. 21:10, 49:14;

Ezech. 1:24, 28, 2:2, 3:12; Apoc. 7:4, 9:16, 14:2, [255] 19:1, 21:3, 22:8, etc.

They are even taken up in the spirit and transported, Ezech. 3:12 v., 8:3,

43:1; Dan. 8:2; Matth. 4:5, 8; Hd. 9:10, 10, 11, 22:17, 23:11, 27:23; 2 Cor.

12:2; Apoc. 1:9, 12, 4:1, 12:18. Daniel was ill for some days after receiving a vision, 7:28, 8:27. Yet the ecstasy in which the recipients of revelation were many times found was not a state in which consciousness was wholly or partially suppressed. Such indeed was the state in which the Greek μαντεις gave their oracles, Tholuck, Die Propheten u. s. w. 64 f. And Philo,

Quis rer. div. heres, Just. Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph, c. 135. Coh. ad Graecos c.

37. Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. c. 8. Tertul. adv. Marc. 4, 22 and in more recent times Hengstenberg in the first edition of his Christol. des A. T. III. 2.

158 f. have understood the ecstasy of the prophets in this way. But these do not receive visions in a sleeping but in a waking state, not only in solitude, but also in the presence of others, Ezech. 8:1. Under the vision they remain conscious of themselves, see, hear, think, speak, ask and answer Ex. 4-6,

32:7 v.; Jes. 6; Jer. 1; Ezech. 4-6 etc. and later they remember everything and communicate it accurately, König, Der Offenbarungsbegriff, I 160 f. II 83 f. Kuenen, De profeten I 96 v. Oehler, Altt. Theol. § 207 f. Orelli in Herzog2 16:724. Therefore the psychic condition of the prophets under the vision was held by most theologians to be a self-conscious, spiritual contemplation, an alienatio mentis a sensibus corporis, and not an alienatio a mente; thus, among others, by Orig. de princ. III, 3, 4, August. ad Simplic.

II qu. 1. Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 175. Witsius, de proph. I c. 4. Buddeus, Inst. theol. dogm. I, 2, 5 and in more recent times by Hävernick and Keil in their introduction to the O. T. Oehler, Altt. Theol. § 210. Tholuck, Die

Propheten S. 64 f. Kueper, Das Profetenthum des Alten Bundes S. 51 f.

Orelli at Herzog2 16, 724. König, Offenb. II 132 f. Only König, in order to maintain objectivity, has added to that the peculiar opinion that all visions were outward, bodily, and sensibly perceptible. Indeed many appearances

such as Gen. 18, 32, Ex. 3, 19, etc. are, according to the intention of the writers, to be regarded as objective. There is a distinction between theophany and vision. But nevertheless the above-mentioned [256] visions,

1 Kon. 22:17 v.; Jes. 6; Jer. 1; Ezech. 1-3; Dan.; Amos 7-9; Zach. 1-6, etc. are certainly inward and spiritual. Many are of such a nature that they are not sensibly imaginable and perceptible. König goes too far when he makes the objectivity and truth of revelation depend on its outwardness, and can think of no working of God's Spirit in the spirit of man except through the outward senses. He forgets that there are also hallucinations of sight and hearing, that the outward as such does not yet exclude self-deception and thus the certainty of revelation is not sufficiently proved by its outward character alone, Orelli at Herzog2 16:724 f. Kuenen H. C. O. II2 13. Van

Leeuwen, Bijb. Godg. 62 v. Borchert, Die Visionen der Propheten, Stud. u.

Krit. 1895, 2tes Heft.

As the last form of revelation, the inner illumination must still be mentioned. Hengstenberg, Christol. des A. T. III2 2 S. 158 cf. also Kueper,

Das Proph. 53 f. thought that ecstasy was the ordinary state in which the prophet found himself when receiving revelation. But this opinion has been contested by many, e.g. by Riehm, Mess. Weissagung2 S. 15 f. König, Der

Off. begriff II 48 f. 83 f. 132 f. and is now generally rejected. Ecstasy is not the rule, but the exception, Kuenen, Prof. I 98. H. C. O2 II 11. Most revelations to the prophets, also in the O. T., took place without any vision, e.g. with Isaiah, Hagg., Mal., Ob., Nah., Hab., Jerem., Ezech. Indeed, for the divine utterance the word "vision" is still often used, but this also happens where nothing is seen Jes. 1:1, 2:1; Amos 1:1; Hab. 1:1, 2:1; 1

Sam. 3:15; Ob. 1; Nah. 1:1 etc. The revelation then takes place inwardly through the Spirit, as Spirit of revelation. To be sure, König, Der Off. I 104

f. 141 f. 155 f. has asserted that the Spirit is not principle of revelation but only principle of illumination, i.e. that Jahveh reveals but the Spirit only makes subjectively receptive for that revelation; König came to this because he also thereby wished to maintain the objectivity and externality of revelation and wished to bind the subjective Spirit to the objective word of Jahveh. But Num. 11:25-29; Deut. 34:9, 1 Sam. 10:6, 19:20 v.; 2 Sam. 23:2;

1 Kon. 22:24; 1 Chron. 12:18, 28:12; 2 Chron. 15:1, 20:14 v., 24:20; Neh.

9:30; Jes. 11:1, 30:1, 42:1, 48:16, 59:21, 61:1, 63:10 v., Ezech. [257] 2:2, 3:24, 8:3, 11:5, 24; Micha 3:8; Hos. 9:7; Joël 2:28; Zach. 7:12, cannot be understood exclusively of a formal, subjective enabling by the Spirit; they teach clearly that the prophets spoke not only through but out of the Spirit, that prophecy proceeded from the Spirit in them. There was indeed also an activity of the Spirit making the prophet subjectively capable, but this is not the only one; it is not to be separated so strictly from the other revealing activity as König does; it is, on König's standpoint, where revelation is wholly external, also unnecessary, Kuenen H. C. O2 14. And the lying spirit

1 Kon. 22:22 teaches clearly that the Spirit is source of the word, Herz.2

16:721. Jewish theology saw in the Spirit not only the source of illumination, but also of revelation and prophecy. Weber, System der altsyn. pal. Theol. 184-187. The N. Test. declares just as clearly that the O. T. prophets spoke out of and through the Spirit of God, Hd. 28:25; 1 Petr.

1:11; 2 Petr. 1:21. Yet there is a difference in the manner in which the H.

Spirit inwardly communicates revelation in O. and N. T. Under the O. T. the H. Spirit descends from above and momentarily upon someone. He comes upon the prophets, Num. 24:2; 1 Sam. 19:20, 23; 2 Chr. 15:1, 20:14; becomes active upon them, Richt. 14:19, 15:14; 1 Sam. 10:6; falls upon them, Ez. 11:5; draws them on as a garment, Richt. 6:34; 1 Chr. 12:18; the

hand, i.e. the power of the Lord, seizes them, Jes. 8:11; Ez. 1:3, 3:22, 8:1, 37:1, 40:1. Over against this working of the Spirit the prophets are then also mostly passive; they are silent, fall to the earth, are dismayed, and for a time are in an abnormal, ecstatic state. The Spirit of prophecy is not yet the abiding possession of the prophets; there is still separation and distance between the two; and the estate of the prophets still stands apart over against the people. The whole prophecy is still imperfect. Therefore it also looks ahead and expects a prophet upon whom the Spirit of the Lord will rest Deut. 18:18; Jes. 11:2, 61:1; indeed it foretells the fulfillment of Moses' wish that all the people of the Lord might be prophets Num. 11:29; and it testifies of a future indwelling of God's Spirit in all children of the Lord,

Jes. 32:15, 44:3, 59:21; Joël 2:28; Ez. 11:19, 36:27, 39:29. In the N. T. the highest, the only, the true prophet appears. As Logos He is the full and completed revelation of God, Joh. 1:1 [258] v. 18, 14:9, 17:6; Col. 2:9. He receives no revelation from above or outside, but is Himself the source of prophecy. The H. Spirit does not come upon Him and does not fall down upon Him. He dwells in Him without measure Joh. 3:34. Out of that Spirit

He is conceived, through that Spirit He speaks, acts, lives and dies, Mt.

3:16, 12:28; Luk. 1:17, 2:27, 4:1, 14, 18; Rom. 1:4; Hebr. 9:14. And that Spirit He bestows upon His disciples, not only as Spirit of regeneration and sanctification but also as Spirit of revelation and illumination, Mk. 13:11;

Luk. 12:12; Joh. 14:17, 15:26, 16:13, 20:22; Hd. 2:4, 6:10, 8:29, 10:19, 11 vs. 12, 13:2, 18:5, 21:4; 1 Cor. 2:12 v.; 12:7-11. Through that Spirit particular persons are indeed still enabled for the office of prophet, Rom.

12:7; 1 Cor. 14:3; Ef. 2:20, 3:5 etc. Also the actual prediction is not lacking in the N. T., Mt. 24; Hd. 20:23, 21:8; 1 Cor. 15; 2 Thess. 2. Apoc. But all believers nevertheless partake of the anointing of the Spirit, 1 Joh. 2:20; and

are taught by the Lord, Mt. 11:25-27; Joh. 6:45. All are prophets, who proclaim the virtues of the Lord, Hd. 2:17 v.; 1 Petr. 2:9. Prophecy as a special gift will be done away, 1 Cor. 13:8. In the new Jerusalem the name of God will be on everyone's foreheads. The lie is there completely excluded, Apoc. 21:27, 22:4, 15. Literature on the prophets and prophecy in Schultz Altt. Theol. 4e Aufl. 213 f; and further König, Der

Offenbarungsbegriff des A. T. Leipzig, Hinrichs 1882. Kuenen, Hist. crit.

Onderzoek, 2e uitg. 1889 II bl. 1 v. Smend, Lehrbuch der altt.

Religionsgesch. 1893. S. 79 f. Kuyper, Encycl. II 362 v. 429 v. C. H.

Cornill, Der israel. Prophetismus, Strassburg 1894.

4. Miracles. Just as man, apart from his appearance and his word, also makes himself known by his deeds, so God also reveals himself not only by his words but also by his works. Word and deed stand in close connection.

God's word is a deed, Ps. 33:9; and his doing is a speaking, Ps. 19:2, 29:3; Isa. 28:26. Both, word and deed, accompany each other in creation as well as in re-creation. Commonly the word precedes, as promise or as threat, but it contains the deed as in germ within itself. His word does not return empty, but does what pleases Him, Isa. 55:10, 11. The word demands the deed; [259] the miracle accompanies the prophecy; not only the consciousness, also the being must be renewed. The words with which in Scripture the deeds, the works of God are designated, are different.

According to their outward appearance they are ִנְפָלאֹות Ex. 3:20, 34:10; Ps.

71:17; ֶּפֶלא Ex. 15:11; Isa. 25:1, insignia, ingentia, or מֹוְפִתים Ex. 4:21, 7:19;

Ps. 105:5, splendidum quid, both gr. τερατα, something special, unusual, that distinguishes itself from the ordinary events. They are called ְּגבּורֹות

Deut. 3:24; Ps. 21:14, 54:3, 66:7, δυναμεις, ַמֲע ִׂשים Ps. 8:7, 19:2, 103:22; Isa.

5:19 or ֲעִלילֹות Ps. 9:12, 77:13 ἐργα μεγαλεια, in order to [designate] the

great, divine power that reveals itself in them. Especially they are also called אֹות Ex. 3:12, 12:13, etc. because they are a proof and sign of the presence of God. Those works of God are to be noted first of all in his creation and preservation. All God's works are miracles. Also the works of nature are many times in Scripture designated with the name of miracles,

Ps. 77:13, 97:3, 98:1, 107:24, 139:14. From that, however, it may not with Scholten, Supranaturalisme in verband met Bijbel, Christendom en

Protestantisme Leiden 1867 bl. 9 v. be inferred that Holy Scripture knows no distinction between nature and miracle. Certainly, the thought that a miracle would be in conflict with the laws of nature and thus would be impossible, does not arise. Rather, the whole of Scripture proceeds from the faith that for God nothing is too wonderful, Gen. 18:14; Deut. 8:3 v.; Mt.

19:26. But therefore there is no lack of a distinction between the ordinary order of nature and the extraordinary acts of power of God. The O. T. knows a fixed order of nature, ordinances that apply for heaven and earth, that are fixed in the ordinance of the Lord, Gen. 1:26, 28, 8:22; Ps. 104:5, 9,

119:90, 91, 148:6; Eccl. 1:10; Job 38:10 v.; Jer. 5:24, 31:25 v., 33:20, 25.

And the N. T. makes an equally clear distinction, Mt. 8:27, 9:5, 24, 33, 13:54; Luk. 5:9, 7:16, 8:53; Joh. 3:2, 9:32, etc. Miracles are a ְּבִריָאה a creation, something new, that otherwise is never seen, Ex. 34:10; Num.

16:30. The facts that in Holy Scripture are mentioned as miracles are also by us still regarded as miracles; about the qualification of those facts there is no difference, cf. Herzog2 17:360. Pierson, Gods wondermacht en ons geestelijk leven 1867 bl. 10 v. Gloatz in Stud. [260] u. Krit. 1886, 3tes Heft

S. 403 f. W. Bender, Der Wunderbegriff des N. T. Frankf. 1871 S. 100 f.

Schultz, Altt. Theol. 577 f. Furthermore Scripture does indeed acknowledge that also outside the revelation unusual powers can work and unusual things

can happen, Ex. 7:11, 22, 8:7, 18, 9:11; Mt. 24:24; Apoc. 13:13 v.; a sign or miracle is in itself thus not enough for the sealing of a prophet, Deut. 13:13. But yet it is only Israel's God who does miracles, Ps. 72:18, 77:15, 86:10,

136:4. Sometimes He brings those miracles about himself directly; sometimes He makes use of men or angels. But always it is God who does them. His δυναμις becomes manifest in them, Luk. 5:17, 14:19; Mk. 7:34;

Luk. 11:20; Joh. 3:2, 5:19 v., 10:25, 32; Acts 2:22, 4:10. It is the Spirit of the Lord who works them, Mt. 12:28; Acts 10:38.

The miracles have their beginning and their foundation in the creation and preservation of all things, which is a continual work and miracle of God, Ps.

33:6, 9; Joh. 5:17. All that happens has its ultimate ground in the will and the power of God. Nothing can withstand Him. He does with the host of heaven according to his good pleasure, Jes. 55:8 v. Ps. 115:3. This power and freedom of God is proclaimed by nature, Jer. 5:22, 10:12, 14:22, 27:5;

Jes. 40:12, 50:2, 3; Ps. 33:13-17, 104; Job 5:9 v., 9:4 v., etc. but comes to expression especially in the history of his people, Deut. 10:21, 11:3, 26:8,

29:2, 32:12 v.; Ps. 66:5 v., 74:13 v., 77:15 v., 78:4 v., 135:8 v.; Jes. 51:2, 9;

Jer. 32:20 v.; Hd. 7:2 v. In this history the miracles occur especially. They take place with different purpose. Now once, to punish the ungodly, Gen.

6:6 v., 11, 19; Ex. 5 v.; Lev. 10:1; Num. 11:30 v., 14:21, 16:1 v., 21:6, etc.

Mt. 8:32, 21:19; Hd. 13:11, etc. Then, to save and deliver God's people, to bring salvation and healing, such as the plagues in Egypt, the passage through the Red Sea, the miracles in the wilderness, the healings of Jesus.

More than once they also have the direct or indirect intention, to confirm the mission of the prophets, the truth of their word, and thus faith in their testimony, Ex. 4:1-9; Deut. 13:1 v.; Richt. 6:37 v.; 1 Sam. 12:16 v.; 1 Kon.

17:24; 2 Kon. 1:10, 20:8; Jes. 7:11, etc.; Mt. 14:33; Luk. 5:24; Joh. 2:11,

3:2, 5:36, 6:14, [261] 7:31, 9:16, 10:38, 12:37; Hd. 2:22, 10:38, etc.

Prophecy and gift of miracles go together. All the prophets and also the apostles have the consciousness of being able to do miracles. Moses was great also in his miracles, Ex. 5-15; Deut. 34:10-12. His sin once consisted in doubt of God's miraculous power, Num. 20:10 v. Around Elijah and Elisha a cycle of miracles is grouped, 1 Kon. 17-2 Kon. 13. With the later prophets the miracles no longer take so great a place. Often they make use of so-called symbolic actions, in order thereby to confirm their prophecy and, as it were, initially to realize it, 1 Kon. 11:29-39, 20:35 v., 22:11; Jes.

7:3, 8:1, 20:2 v., 21:6, 30:8; Jer. 13, 16, 18, 19, 25:15, 27, 28:10 v., 32:6, 43:8; Ezech. 4, 5, 6:11, 7:23, 12:3, 17:1; Hos. 1-3; Hd. 21:10 v., Schultz,

Altt. Theol. 250 f. Smend, Lehrb. der altt. Rel. Gesch. 88. König, Der Offenbarungsbegriff II 111 f. But nevertheless miracles are still narrated of them too, and they have the conviction of being able to do miracles, Jes.

7:11, 16:14, 21:16, 38:7 cf. 2 Kon. 20; Jer. 22:12, 30, 28:16, 29:22, 36:30, 37:7 v.; Dan. 1-6. But all those miracles in the O. T. have not effected an elevation, a renewal of nature. They have had their effect. They have alternately punished and blessed humanity, and in any case preserved it from destruction. They have created in Israel a distinct people, delivered it from the bondage of Egypt, preserved it from merging with the Gentiles, and as the people of God protected it over against the oppressive power of nature. But they were momentary, passed by, diminished in effect and were forgotten. Life took its usual course. Nature seemed to triumph. Then prophecy raised its voice and it spoke that Israel could not perish and dissolve into the natural life of the Gentiles. God will come anew and in greater glory to his people. God will not forget his covenant, it is an eternal covenant, Ps. 89:1-5; Jes. 54:10. With that coming of God the old time

passes over into the new. That is the turning point in world history. It is the יֹום יהוה, the Day of the Lord, on which He will reveal his glory and display his miraculous power. God then gives signs of wonder in heaven, Am. 8:8 v.; Joel 2:30. The whole of nature, heaven and earth, will be moved [262] ,

Am. 9:5; Jes. 13:10, 13, 24:18-20, 34:1-5; Joel 2:2, 10, 3:15; Mich. 1:3 v.; Hab. 3:3 v.; Nah. 1:4 v.; Ezech. 31:15 v., 32:7 v., 38:19 v. Judgment will go over the ungodly, Jes. 24:16 v. etc. but it will also purify and set free. God will save his people by his miracles, Jes. 9:3, 10:24 v., 11:15 v., 43:16-21,

52:10, 62:8. He does something new on the earth, Jes. 43:19, brings Israel back out of death, Ezech. 37:12-14, and makes it share in a fullness of spiritual and material blessings. Forgiveness of sins, holiness, a new covenant, Jes. 44:21-23, 43:25; Ezech. 36:25-28; Jer. 31:31 v.; Zach. 14:20,

21, but also peace, security, prosperity will be its portion. Even nature will change into a paradise, Hos. 2:17 v.; Joel 3:18; Jer. 31:6, 12-14; Jes. 11:6-8,

65:25; Ezech. 34:29, 36:29 v.; Zach. 8:12. There comes a new heaven and a new earth, and the former things will no longer be remembered, Jes. 65:17,

66:22. This Jom Jhvh, this ֹעָלם ַהָּבא, αἰων μελλων, in contrast with the ֹעָלם

ַהֶּזה, αἰων οὑτος, has, according to the representation of Scripture, begun with the N. Test. The coming of Christ is the turning point of the times. A new cycle of miracles is grouped around his person. He himself is the absolute miracle, descended from above and yet the true, perfect man. In him, in principle, creation has been restored again, raised up again from its fall to its former glory. His miracles are σημεια of the presence of God, proof of the Messianic time, Mt. 11:3-5, 12:28; Luk. 13:16, a part of his

Messianic work. In Christ a divine δυναμις appears, which is stronger than every corrupting and devastating power of sin. This power he attacks, not only in the periphery, by healing diseases and ailments and doing all kinds

of miracles; but he penetrates into its center, breaks and overcomes it. His incarnation and satisfaction, his resurrection and ascension are the great acts of deliverance of God. They are the principial restoration of the kingdom of glory. These facts of salvation are not means only, to reveal something, but they are the revelation of God itself. The miracle here becomes history, and history itself is a miracle. The person and the work of Christ is the central revelation of God; all other revelation groups itself around that. [263] But also after Jesus' departure his miraculous power continues in the disciples,

Mt. 10; Mk. 16:18; Luk. 8. And not only in the Acts are many miracles narrated, 2:43, 3:5, 5:12-16, 6:8, 8:6, 7, 13, 9:34, 40, 13:11, 14:3, 16:18,

19:11, 20:10, 28:5, 8; but Paul also bears witness to this miraculous power of the apostles, Rom. 15:18, 19; 1 Cor. 12:9, 10; 2 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 3:5, cf.

Hebr. 2:4. For a time this miraculous power continues still in the congregation. But it has ceased, when Christianity is established and the church is the object in which God glorifies the miracles of his grace, Aug. de civ. 22:8, de util. cred. 16, de vera relig. 25. The spiritual miracles are those in which God now reveals his power and his glory, Luther bij Köstlin,

Luthers Theol. II 249 v. 341 v. Scholten, L. H. K. I 143. Yet Scripture points to a future in which the miracle will anew do its work. The αἰων μελλων is completed only in the new heaven and the new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Then the miracle has become nature. Ethos and physis are reconciled. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world is one,

Op. 21-22. Cf. Oehler Theol. des A. T. 1882 S. 210 f. Schultz, Altt. Theol.

270 f. 534 f. 577 f. Smend, Lehrb. der Altt. Rel. Gesch. 88 f. W. Bender, Der Wunderbegriff des N. T. Frankf. a/M. 1871. Ph. Schaff, Jesus Christ, the wonder of history 1867. Neander, Gesch. der Pflanzung u. Leitung der

Chr. K. 5e Aufl. 1862 S. 49 f. 154 f. 336 f. Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften, Hamb. 1839 I 28 f.

B. Concept of special revelation.

5. The system of revelation, which Scripture makes known to us, has been far too much misunderstood and neglected in Christian theology. Only in more recent times has the concept and the essence of revelation become the object of deeper investigation. Formerly no need for this was felt. Between the Christians and the Heathens the possibility of revelation was not in dispute. The struggle was only over the truth of that revelation which was taught in O. and N. Test. And this was argued on all kinds of grounds by the apologists over against the attacks especially of Celsus and Porphyrius. For the rest, the [264] thoughts about revelation came down to this schema: God can only be known through God. All knowledge and service of God therefore rests on revelation on his part. But the revelation of God in nature and history is insufficient. Therefore there is need of a special revelation, which reaches its climax in Christ, Harnack, Lehrb. der Dogmengesch. I2

420 f. 436 f. 453 f. The following theologians, especially also the scholastics, devoted all care to determining and describing the relation between nature and revelation, knowing and believing, philosophy and theology, but did not think through the concept of revelation and also brought it up only in passing, cf. Thomas S. Theol. I qu. 57 art. 5 ad 3. II 2 qu. 2 art. 6. III qu. 55 art. 3. The Protest. theologians too have devoted too little attention to this concept. They immediately identified revelation with Holy Scripture and did not entirely escape the abstract-supranaturalistic and

one-sidedly intellectualistic conception which had gradually been formed of it in theology. Cf. Gerhard, Loci Theol. I § 12. Calovius, Isagoge ad theol. p. 101 sq. 142 sq. Polanus, Synt. Theol. VI 9. Maresius, Syst. Theol. I § 15 sq. Heidegger, Corpus Theol. XII 46. Socinianism drove this supernatural and intellectual concept of revelation to a point, Fock, Der Socin. 296 f. 314 f. Remonstrantism had essentially the same representation, Limborch,

Theol. Christ. II 9, 18. Between rationalism and supranaturalism there was no difference over the concept of revelation; for both it consisted in an external communication of doctrine. It was not surprising, and also fully deserved, that such a concept of revelation could not withstand the criticism of deism and rationalism. What was the religious value of a revelation which gave nothing but some intellectual truth, which perhaps later would still be found by reason itself? Yet it appeared that one had settled accounts with the concept of revelation all too quickly. Religion and revelation showed, upon deeper historical and philosophical investigation, a much closer affinity than had formerly been supposed. Thus the concept of revelation again came more into honor in more recent theology and philosophy, and various attempts at reconstruction were tried.

Hamann, Claudius, Lavater, Herder, Jacobi and others pointed to the affinity of religion and art and brought revelation [265] into connection with genial inspiration. The concept of revelation was thus expanded, so that everything became revelation. Religion, poetry, philosophy, history, language are different expressions of one and the same original life. Omnia divina et humana omnia. And in the midst of all these revelations stands

Christ; to Him everything points, around Him everything groups itself, Ehrenfeuchter, Christenthum und moderne Weltanschauung, Göttingen

1876 S. 243 f. Schleiermacher also, Glaub. § 10, 13, decisively rejected the

rationalistic doctrine of revelation. He did not seek its peculiarity in the more or less supernatural character which it bears, but in the new and original with which a person or an event appears in history. Revelation is therefore akin to poetic and heroic inspiration, and in fact consists in awakening new, original affections of religious feeling. By Schleiermacher that conception of revelation was prepared which locates its existence not in communication of doctrine but of life. Rothe, Zur Dogmatik 1862 S. 55-120 has, regarding revelation as inspiration, the same thought, but he assumes therewith, as a constitutive element of revelation, still an external, historical manifestation, in order that the internal revelation, the inspiration, may not be magical and mechanical. The peculiarities of the concept of revelation among the theologians who more or less attach themselves to Schleiermacher consist then especially in this: revelation is to be distinguished from theopneusty, from the H. Scripture; Scripture is not the revelation but its document; revelation is a religious, more precisely still a soteriological concept, indeed akin to genial, poetic, heroic inspiration but not identical; it is the correlate of religion alone; proceeding from God as Redeemer, it has no doctrine about all kinds of physical, historical and metaphysical things as its content, but only religious-ethical truth; it is communication of life, self-communication of God; it is not in the strict sense supernatural, but genuinely natural and human; it is finally not only external (manifestation), but also internal and spiritual (inspiration).

Alongside this there is indeed still difference about beginning, extent, end of revelation, but in the main this is nevertheless the conception, as it is found in Nitzsch, System der chr. Lehre § 22. Twesten I 341 f. Martensen §

11, 12. Lange I § 56 f. Dorner I 569 f. Frank, System der chr. Wahrheit 2e

Aufl. [266] II 8 f. Kähler, Wiss. der chr. Lehre I 192 f. Saussaye, mijne theologie 35 v. Gunning en Saussaye, Het ethisch beginsel 21 v. etc.

But not only Schleiermacher and his school have brought the concept of revelation to new life; Schelling and Hegel also have attempted the same in their way. Through them rationalism acquired a speculative character. They did not try to destroy Christian revelation by a critique of the understanding, but sought speculatively to trace the deep idea which lay at its foundation and at that of all Christian dogmas, and thus set themselves, as speculative rationalism, over against the vulgar rationalism of earlier times. According to Schelling in his first period, the whole world was the self-revelation of God. Nature is the visible spirit, spirit the invisible nature. God's essence becomes knowable to man from the whole of nature, especially however from the development of the human spirit in art, religion, and science. And thus Hegel also taught that God does not reveal himself to man through a transient event in time, but He reveals himself in man himself, and becomes conscious of himself in man. And this becoming conscious of himself of God in man, is man's knowledge of God, is religion, Religionsphilosophie

1832 I 29. II 158. Encyclop. S. 576. Revelation in Hegel is thus identical with the necessary self-revelation, with the becoming conscious of itself of the Absolute in the human spirit; the history of religions is the history of the Absolute's coming to itself in human consciousness, and reaches its climax in Christianity, which expresses the unity of God and man. To this thought about revelation, as self-communication of God to each and every man, there attaches in the main that conception of revelation which we find in Marheineke, Grundlehren der chr. Dogm. § 206. Rosenkranz, Encycl. der theol. Wiss. 2e Aufl. 1845 S. 1 f. Erdmann, Glauben und Wissen 1837.

Strauss, Glaubenslehre § 19. Feuerbach, Wesen des Christ. 2e Ausg. S. 174.

Biedermann, Chr. Dogm. I 264 f. Pfleiderer, Grundriss § 16. Lipsius, Dogm. § 52, Philos. und Religion 1885 S. 266 f. Scholten, Initia, ed. 2. p.

26-39. L. H. K. I 165 v. 233, 299. What is common to these is the denial of the supernatural character of revelation, but otherwise there is great difference about content, extent, and manner. From both [267] groups the concept of revelation in the school of Ritschl is again distinguished. The peculiarity of this conception lies herein, that very little value is attached to the distinction of natural and supernatural revelation, that emphasis is laid on the positive character of every religion and on the historical, external in revelation, and that for Christianity that historical revelation is found especially or even exclusively in the person of Christ, Ritschl Rechtf. u.

Vers. III3 190 f. 599 f. Kaftan, Wesen der chr. Religion 171 f. 295 f.

Herrmann, Der Begriff der Offenbarung Giessen 1887. G. v. SchulthessRettberg, Der Gedanke einer göttlichen Offenbarung, Zurich 1893. Nitzsch,

Lehrbuch der ev. Dogm. S. 131 f. Cf. the Groninger school in our country here, Hofstede de Groot, De Groninger Godgeleerden in hunne eigenaardigheid 42 v.

A clear and lucid understanding of revelation is still lacking in dogmatics.

Among theologians there is disagreement about everything that comes into consideration with that concept. Perhaps a boundary can be drawn between those who assume a supernatural revelation or only a natural revelation. But even then the question arises whether the supernatural character of revelation lies in the manner in which it came to us, or in the new, original character of the content (Schleiermacher). In what, further, is supernatural revelation distinguished from natural revelation in nature and history, especially from the religious, poetic, heroic inspiration that is also found outside Christianity and has so often been brought into connection with

Christian revelation (Hamann, Herder, Jacobi, Schleiermacher)? Where, subsequently, is that supernatural revelation to be found, also in the religions of the Heathens, or only in Israel, or even exclusively in the person of Christ (Schleiermacher, Ritschl). How far does it extend after Christ, is it limited to Him, or is also the working of the H. Spirit in regeneration, conversion, etc. still to be reckoned under the concept of revelation (Frank)? Is its content in the first place knowledge, so that it enlightens the understanding (Hegel, Biedermann, Scholten), or is it chiefly mystical in nature, an operation upon the disposition, an affection, an arousing of feeling (Schleiermacher, Lipsius, Opzoomer, Ethischen)? In revelation, is the external, the historical, the manifestation, whether then in nature (Hegel, Scholten), [268] or whether in history (Schelling, Ritschl), or specifically also as miracle (Rothe) the main matter, or does the centre of gravity lie in the subject in the self-revelation of the absolute Spirit, of God, to man (Biedermann, Lipsius)?

6. The revelation, which Scripture makes known to us, does not consist in a few disconnected words and facts, but is one historical and organic whole, a mighty world-governing and world-renewing system of acts of God. It appears, as we saw, in three forms, theophany, prophecy, and miracle, ְׁש ִכיָנה‎,

‏ְנבּוָיה‎ and ְּבִריָאה‎. But these three do not stand separately alongside one another; they form one whole and together aim at one goal. Already through the revelatio generalis God does not leave himself without witness to man;

He reveals himself in nature and history, He speaks in heart and conscience; He works miracles of power. The revelatio generalis too may be called revelation. For in a broad sense revelation is all action that proceeds from God, in order to place man in a religious relation to Him. But through sin another revelation becomes necessary, which indeed stands in manifold

connection with the revelatio generalis but which nevertheless is essentially, in form and content, distinct from it. It is directed, after all, to fallen man, and must therefore be a revelation of grace. The revelatio specialis is God's seeking of and God's coming to man. He must now so reveal himself and so speak and so work, that man is again renewed after his image. Therefore

God comes to man in a human way. The incarnation is the central fact in the revelatio specialis, which spreads light over its whole domain. Already in creation God makes himself like men. But in the re-creation He becomes man and enters into our condition. And this incarnation, which is the proper content of the revelatio specialis, already in a certain sense begins immediately after the fall. The special revelation of God enters into history, and forms a history, which runs through the centuries. It assumes such a historical character, because humanity itself, to whom it is directed, exists only in the historical form. It shares its life, follows it in its courses, traverses with it the times unto the end. It reaches back deeply into the life of creation [269], attaches itself to providence and causes its light to shine through the prism of human persons, conditions, and events. It makes use of all character and individuality, of all disposition and gift, which are given in creation. It wraps itself in the forms of type and shadow, of image and symbol, of art and poetry, of epistolary form and chronicle. In religion it takes over the usages which are found in other religions, such as circumcision and offering, temple and priesthood. It even does not deem lot and dream and vision too insignificant to employ them as instrument. So deeply does the divine descend into the human, that the boundaries between revelation and pseudo-religion seem to be erased. Divine speech and oracle, prophecy and mantics, miracle and magic seem to draw near to one another.

And yet it is another heart that beats in Israel's religion. The peripheral and atomistic view appeals to such facts of agreement between the religion of Scripture and the religions of the peoples, but it does not explain revelation in its character and significance, and in the end knows no counsel with Scripture. Therefore this view must yield to the central and organic, which from the center lets the light shine out to the outermost circumference. And that center is the incarnation of God. He is the one who in the revelatio specialis descends and makes himself like human beings.

The subject of the special revelation is in the proper sense the Logos, the Malak Jhvh, the Christ. He is the mediator of creation, Joh. 1:3; Col. 1:15, but also of re-creation. Του γαρ δια της ἰδιας προνοιας και διακοσμησεως των ὁλων διδασκοντος περι του Πατρος, αὐτου ἠν και την αὐτην διδασκαλιαν ἀνανεωσαι, Athan. de incarn. c. 14. Cf. Iren. adv. haer. IV 6.

He is the subject of revelation also already in the O. Test., the angel of the covenant, who led Israel, Ex. 14:19, 23:20, 32:34, 33:2; Jes. 63:8, 9, the content of prophecy Joh. 5:39; 1 Petr. 1:11; Apoc. 19:10. Through theophany, prophecy, and miracle he prepares his coming in the flesh. The O. Test. revelation is the history of the coming Christ. Theophany, prophecy, and miracle run out upon him. In Christ they fall together. He is the revelation, the word, the power of God. He shows us the Father, declares to us his name, accomplishes his work. The incarnation [270] is the conclusion, the goal and the end both of Israel's history, and at the same time the center of all history. Bis hierher und von daher geht die Geschichte

(Joh. von Müller). The incarnation is the Centralwunder; es ist das Wunder aller Wunder, da das Göttliche unmittelbar mit dem Menschlichen sich berührt, Ranke, Weltgeschichte VIII 72.

When the revelation of God in Christ, in his person and work, has appeared and has been described in Scripture, another dispensation enters in. The Holy Spirit came to dwell in the church; thereby the character of the times was changed. The αἰων οὑτος passed over into the αἰων μελλων. Just as in the first period everything was prepared for Christ, so now everything is derived from him. Then Christ was formed into the head of the church, now the church into the body of Christ. Then the Word, Holy Scripture, was completed, now it is being worked out. But yet this dispensation also takes a place in the system of revelation. The revelation has been continued, although modified according to the nature of the dispensation. The revelation, as intending and bringing forth the Christ, has reached its end.

For Christ is there, his work is accomplished, and his word is completed.

New, constitutive elements of the revelatio specialis can no longer be added. The question is therefore also of subordinate importance, whether in the Christian church the gift of prophecy and of miracles still continues.

The testimonies of the church fathers are so numerous and powerful, that for the earliest times this question can hardly be answered in the negative,

Thomas II 2 qu. 178. Voetius, Disp. II 1002 sq. Gerhard, Loci, loc. 22 sectio 11. Dr. C. Middleton, A free inquiry into the miraculous powers, which are supposed to have subsisted in the Christian Church, 3 ed. Lond. 1749.

Tholuck, Ueber die wunder der Kath. Kirche, Verm. Schriften I 28-148. J.

H. Newman, Two essays on scripture miracles and on ecclesiastical, 2 ed.

Lond. 1870. H. Müller, Natur und Wunder, Strassb. 1892 S. 182. But even if those gifts have remained, the content of that revelatio specialis, which concentrates itself in Christ and has been laid down in Scripture, does not thereby become richer; and if, according to the thought of Augustine, de civ.

22, 8, de util. cred. 16, de vera relig. 25, they have diminished and ceased,

that revelation does not thereby become poorer. However this may be, the revelatio specialis in Christ nevertheless continues in a certain sense in this dispensation. Even if all prophecy in the Christian church has ceased and every miracle in the proper sense is past, the church itself is from moment to moment product of the revelation. The spiritual miracles continue. The grace of God in Christ glorifies itself in illumination and regeneration, in faith and conversion, in sanctification and preservation. Christ is mediator; it is for the sake of the church that it concerns him; he came to renew the world and to recreate humanity after the image of God. The revelatio specialis finds its goal in bringing about a new order of affairs. And therefore it continues, in modified form, i.e. in a spiritual sense, even now.

Its point of rest it finds only in the epiphany of Christ, in the new heaven and the new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation according to Scripture is therefore a historical process, an organic system, a continual divine action for the breaking of the power of sin, for the establishment of his kingdom, for the restoration of the cosmos, for ἀνακεφαλαιωσις των παντων ἐν Χριστῳ, Ef. 1:10. In the theophany

God again sets himself as the only and true God over against the idols of man's own adornment; in prophecy He places his thought as the truth over against the lie of Satan, and in the miracle He displays his divine power over against all works of unrighteousness. In revelation God posits and maintains his I over against all non-I, and brings it, in spite of all opposition, to general recognition and to complete triumph. Soteriological, therefore, is the whole of revelation. It proceeds from Christ, both in O. and in N. T. But soteriological then conceived in the sense of Scripture, not in a religious-ethical sense, as if revelation would contain only religious and ethical truth; still much less in an intellectual sense, as if revelation

consisted only in doctrine. But soteriological in a scriptural sense, namely thus, that the content of revelation is not doctrine or life or emotion of the mind, but that it is all that together, a divine work, a world of thoughts and deeds, an ordo gratiae, which combats and conquers the ordo peccati on every terrain. The goal of revelation is not only to teach man and to enlighten his understanding (rationalism), to cause him to practise virtue

(moralism), to cultivate religious emotions in him [272] (mysticism). But God's purpose with his revelation extends much further and broader. It is none other than to withdraw man, humanity, the world from the power of sin, and to cause the Name of God to shine forth again in all creature. Sin has corrupted and destroyed everything, understanding and will, ethical and physical world. And therefore it is also the whole man and the entire cosmos, for whose salvation and restoration it is God's concern with his revelation. Soteriological, therefore, very certainly is God's revelation, but the object of that σωτηρια is the cosmos, and not only the ethical or the will with exclusion of the understanding and not the psychic alone with exclusion of the somatic and physical, but all together. For God has shut up all under sin in order that He might be merciful to all, Rom. 5:15 v., 11:32;

Gal. 3:22.

C. Special revelation and Supranaturalism.

7. This organic conception of revelation has been misunderstood in the Christian church in a twofold way, both by supranaturalism and by naturalism (rationalism). Over against both it therefore needs to be set in a clearer light and maintained. First over against supranaturalism, which has

arisen especially in Rome and then continues to have effects in various directions within Protestantism. Scripture does indeed know a distinction between the ordinary course of things and extraordinary works of God, but it still does not make the antithesis of natural and supernatural. This first occurs with the church fathers. Special revelation is identified with the supernatural and set over against the natural. Clemens Alex., Strom. 2, 2 already speaks of ὑπερφυης θεωρια, which one obtains through faith.

Chrysostomus, Hom. 36 in Gen, calls the miracles ὑπερ φυσιν and φυσει μειζονα. Ambrosius, de mysteriis c. 9. sets gratia, miraculum, mysterium over against the ordo naturae. Johannes Damascenus speaks repeatedly of the miracles, such as the conception of Christ, the eucharist, etc. as ὑπερ φυσιν, ὑπερ λογον και ἐννοιαν, de fide orthod. IV 12-15. Cf. Denzinger,

Vier Bücher von der relig. Erk. I [273] 82 f. Since then the distinction of natural and supernatural has found acceptance and obtained citizenship in the whole of Christian theology. Without doubt this distinction also has a right to exist. Scripture may not make it in so many words; it nevertheless acknowledges an ordinary order of nature and alongside it deeds and works which have their cause only in the power of God. The revelation in Holy

Scripture presupposes that there is yet another, higher and better world than this nature and that there is thus an ordo rerum is supra hanc naturam. The concepts of natural and supernatural therefore need to be clearly defined.

Nature, from nasci, to be born, in general denotes that which, without foreign power or influence from outside, develops only according to its inward forces and laws. Nature then even stands over against art, education, culture, history, which do not arise of themselves, spontaneously, but come into being through human agency. But further the concept of nature is extended to the whole cosmos, insofar as this moves and develops not from

outside but from within, through immanent forces and according to its own implanted laws. Supernatural is then everything that goes beyond the forces of the natura creata and does not have its cause in the creatures but in the omnipotence of God. In this sense special revelation was conceived in Christian theology. Taken as a whole, it had its origin in a special act of God, which had revealed itself not in the ordinary course of nature but in an order of affairs of its own, distinct from that. In addition, a further distinction was then made between the supernatural in an absolute sense, as something that goes beyond the power of all creatures, and the supernatural in a relative sense, as it surpasses the power of a particular cause in the given circumstances; and furthermore also between the supernaturale quoad substantiam, as the fact itself is supernatural, e.g. the raising of a dead person, and the supernaturale quoad modum, as only the manner of acting is supernatural, e.g. the healing of a sick person without means, Thomas, S. c.

Gent. III 101. Even in these distinctions there lay in themselves as yet no danger. Indeed, they must be defended over against a philosophy which denies or weakens the supernatural. The expression supernatural is namely in later theology and [274] philosophy many times understood in a very altered sense, and alternately identified with the supersensible (Kant), the free (Fichte), the unknown (Spinoza, Wegscheider), the new and original

(Schleiermacher), the religious-ethical, the spiritual (Saussaye), etc. But such an alteration of the fixed and clear meaning of a word leads to misunderstanding. If by supernatural one means nothing other than the supersensible, the ethical, etc., one does better to avoid the term. And the confusion becomes still greater when one mixes the natural and the supernatural together and then gives to this fusion the name of the Geistleibliche, God-human, etc. The concept of nature includes all that is

created, not only matter, the material, but also soul and spirit; not only the physical but also the psychical, the religious and the ethical life, insofar as it arises of itself from human disposition; not only visible, but also invisible, supersensible things. The supernatural is not identical with the original, the genial, the free, the religious, the ethical, etc., but is the clear and fixed name only for that which cannot be explained from the forces and according to the laws of created things. Up to this point the distinction between natural and supernatural, which arose in Christian theology, is completely correct, definite, clear, cutting off all confusion. Subject to what was said above p. 230 f., special revelation, in its three forms of theophany, prophecy, and miracle, is supernatural in the strict sense.

But in Christian theology the concept of the supernatural was gradually delimited still more narrowly. On the one hand it was distinguished from creation and on the other hand from the spiritual miracles of regeneration etc. The first distinction was made because the supernatural exists not for God but only for us, and presupposes the ordinary order, called into being by creation. Of the supernatural one can speak only when nature already exists beforehand. And on the other hand regeneration, forgiveness, sanctification, unio mystica etc., were indeed regarded as direct acts of God, but were nevertheless not reckoned to the supernatural revelation, because they are not unusual and rare but in the church belong to the ordinary ordo rerum. The church itself is indeed [275] supranatural but nevertheless no miracle. The supernatural and the miracle are again distinguished. Not everything supernatural is a miracle, but the reverse is. Miracles are not only supernatural, but in addition also unusual and rare events in nature or grace. They occur not only praeter ordinem naturae alicujus particularis, but praeter ordinem totius naturae creatae. Angels and devils cannot in the

proper sense perform miracles, but only such things as appear miraculous to us and occur praeter ordinem naturae creatae nobis notae, Thomas, S.

Theol. I qu. 110 art. 4. S. c. Gent. I 6. III 112. Voetius, Disp. II. 973 sq.

Thomas speaks not only of miracles praeter and supra, but also contra naturam, qu. de miraculis, art. 2 ad 3, Müller, Natur u. Wunder, Strassburg

1892 S. 145. And Voetius said that miracles indeed are not contra naturam universalem sed supra et praeter eam, but nevertheless could sometimes also be contra naturam aliquam particularem, Disp. II 973, cf. Gerhard,

Loci Comm. Loc. 22 § 271 sq. And miracles thus had the following characteristics: opus immediatum Dei, supra omnem naturam, in sensus incurrens, rarum, ad confirmationem veritatis, Voetius, ib. II 965. Gerhard, ib. loc. 22 § 271. However much good there may now be in these determinations and distinctions made by scholasticism, they nevertheless brought with them no small danger. Special revelation was on the one hand detached from creation and nature; even though it was acknowledged that supernatural revelation had taken place not only now but already before the fall, Calovius, Isag. ad theol. p. 49, and thus in itself could not be in conflict with nature, yet this was not thought through. On the other hand special revelation was set over against the spiritual miracles, the works of grace, which continually take place in the church of Christ and thus was isolated from re-creation and grace. Special revelation thus came to stand entirely on its own, without connection with nature and history. Its historical and organic character was misunderstood. It did not enter into world and humanity, but remained floating outside and above it. It was finally conceived as a doctrine, as a proclamation of uncomprehended and incomprehensible mysteries, whose truth was confirmed by the miracles. It was and remained in one word a donum superadditum of the cosmos. [276]

8. In Rome this supranaturalistic and dualistic system has been consistently worked out. In God there are two conceptions of man, of his nature and destiny. Man in puris naturalibus, without the image of God, as he in fact still is after the fall, can have a pure knowledge of God from His works, can serve and fear Him and stand in a normal, in itself good, servant-relationship to Him, can practice all natural virtues, even also the natural love to God, and can thus bring it to a certain state of happiness in this and in the future life. If he does not bring it that far, then that is his own fault and this is to be attributed to the not or poor use of the natural powers bestowed upon him. But God still wants to give man a higher, supernatural, heavenly destiny. Then for that purpose He must grant to man dona superaddita both before and now after the fall. He must bestow upon him a supernatural grace, by which he can know and love God in another, better, higher way, can practice better and higher virtues, and can attain a higher destiny. That higher knowledge consists in the fides; that higher love in the caritas; those higher virtues are the theological, faith, hope, love, which are essentially distinguished from the virtutes cardinales (intellectuales et morales); and that higher destiny consists in the sonship of God, the birth from God, the unio mystica, the communion in the Divine nature, the θεωσις, deificatio, the visio Dei etc. This doctrine is already prepared in some statements of the church fathers, but was nevertheless first developed by scholasticism, especially by Halesius, Summa universae Theol. II qu. 91 m. 1. a. 3. Bonaventura, Breviloquium V cap. 1. Thomas disp. de verit. qu.

27. S. Theol. I 2. qu. 62 art. 1. In the struggle against Bajus and Jansenius it was ecclesiastically established, Denzinger, Enchir. symbol. et definit. num.

882 sq. and by the Vaticanum expressly pronounced, Sess. III cap. 2: revelatio absolute necessaria dicenda est, — — quia Deus infinita bonitate

sua ordinavit hominem ad finem supernaturalem, ad participanda sc. bona divina. quae humanae mentis intelligentiam superant, with appeal to 1 Cor.

2:9. Cf. Canones II 3. Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit, 2e Aufl. 1872 II S. 3151. Denzinger, Vier Bücher von der relig. Erk. I 105 f. II 75 f. Scheeben,

Handb. der kath. Dogm. II 1878 S. [277] 240 f. Id. Natur u. Gnade Mainz 1861. Schäzler, Natur u. Gnade. Oswald, Religiöse Urgeschichte der

Menschheit 2e Aufl. 1887 § 1 f.

Now it must be acknowledged that the distinction in the condition before and after the fall does not lie in revelation in itself. There was supernatural revelation also in paradise, Gen. 1:28 v.; 2:16 v.; it has therefore not first become necessary through sin. Indeed, even in the status integritatis there was also a revelation of grace, for even then the relation of love, in which God placed himself toward man, was a manifestation of unmerited goodness. What has thus been made necessary by sin is not revelation in itself, but the definite content of revelation, that is the gratia specialis, the revelation of God in Christ, the ἐνσαρκωσις του θεου. Revelation of God was needed also for religion in the status integritatis. But the religio christiana is grounded on a particular, definite revelation. Paul has this in view when in 1 Cor. 2 vs. 4-16 he speaks of the wisdom of God, which has always been hidden and has not ascended into the heart of man. Rome cannot really deny this itself, unless it were to accept the doctrine that, on the supposition that God wished to bestow upon man a finis supernaturalis, the whole supranatural order which now exists in the incarnation, the church, the sacraments, would also without and apart from sin have been necessary. Thereby, however, the soteriological character of revelation would be entirely lost, the fall would lose its significance, and sin would have brought about no change whatsoever. The doctrine of the finis

supernaturalis has therefore in the Roman church always encountered much opposition, with Bajus, Jansenius, Hirscher, Hermes, Günther; but it is most closely connected with the whole Roman system, which is built not on the religious antithesis of sin and grace, but on the distinction of degree in the good, on the ranking of creatures and of virtues, on the hierarchy in a physical and in an ethical sense. The Reformation, however, had only one idea, one conception of man, namely that of bearer of the image of God, and this applied to all men. If that image in the narrower sense is lost, then thereby the whole human nature is damaged, and man can no longer have any religion and any ethos which correspond to the demand of God and to his own idea. Then his religion and his virtue, however beautiful [278] they may seem, are nevertheless corrupted at the root. There is no religio naturalis. All religions have become superstitions. But therefore the religio christiana is also essentially one with the religio vera in the status integritatis. The Reformed carried this so far that they said that Adam too had had the knowledge of the Trinity and faith, that even then the Logos had been mediator, not reconciliationis but unionis, that even then the H.

Spirit was the author of all virtue and power, etc. The true thought lay in it, that the will of God is no arbitrariness, which alternately forms for itself now this and then that idea of man; that the conception of man, the nature of the image of God, and thus also the religio must be one. And from that it then finally followed that revelation was necessary not absolutely but relatively, not quoad substantiam but quoad modum. The religio is one before and after the fall; that, however, it is christiana, that has become necessary through sin. The religio christiana is a means, not an end; Christ is mediator, but the end is ὁ θεος τα παντα ἐν πασιν, 1 Cor. 15:28.

With that it is now further given that revelation cannot stand absolutely over against nature. With Rome there is a quantitative antithesis; the religio naturalis is essentially different from the religio supernaturalis; both stand alongside each other; they are two entirely different conceptions, two wholly distinct systems and orders; the ordo gratiae raises itself high above the orde naturae. But the Reformation has converted that quantitative antithesis into a qualitative one. Revelation stands not over against nature, but over against sin. That is the power which revelation seeks to break, but nature it restores and it completes. Creation itself is already revelation.

Revelation existed before the fall. Revelation also still exists now in all the works of God's hands in nature and history. His eternal power and divinity are understood and perceived from the creatures. Analogies of prophecy and miracle also exist outside the revelatio specialis. The inspiration of heroes and artists, the wondrous powers which sometimes come to light, can serve for elucidation and confirmation of the facts of revelation, mentioned in Scripture. Even the mantic and magic in the pagan religions are phenomena which, as caricature, still show resemblance to the original image in revelation. [279] Yes, this itself, as it were, reaches back into nature, attaches itself thereto, and prepares itself therein. The gratia communis points toward the gratia specialis, and this takes the former into service.

Natura commendat gratiam, gratia emendat naturam. Even creation itself is built up on redemption lines, Orr, The christian view of God and the world, p. 323. See further my address on De algemeene Genade, Kampen 1894.

D. Special revelation and Naturalism.

9. The principled combating of revelation first began in modern philosophy.

Spinoza still retains the word revelation and even deems it necessary, Tract. theol.-polit. cap. 15, 27, but by it he understands nothing else than that the simple cannot find the true religion, the word of God, by the light of reason, but must accept it on authority, ib. cap. 15, 44. cap. 4, 22-37. For the rest

Spinoza recognizes no revelation in the proper sense; all decreta Dei are aeternae veritates and identical with the leges naturae, ib. cap. 4, 37; 3, 8; 6,

9, etc.; prophecy and miracle were subjected to a sharp criticism and explained in a natural way, ib. cap. 1-6. This criticism was continued by deism and rationalism. But rationalism can occur in different forms and changes each time in meaning, cf. Kant, Religion innerhalb usw. ed.

Rosenkranz S. 185. Wegscheider, Instit. Theol. § 7 d. § 11-12.

Bretschneider, Syst. Entw. aller in der Dogm. vork. Begriffe, § 34. Nitzsch, Lehrb. der ev. Dogm. S. 141 f. In the first place, by rationalism is designated that direction which indeed accepts a supernatural revelation, but entrusts the decision concerning the genuineness and the sense of that revelation to reason; to that belonged many Cartesian theologians, such as Roell, Wolzogen, G. W. Duker, and also Leibniz, Wolff e. a. Next, rationalism is the name for that opinion which indeed still deems a supernatural revelation possible, but only of such truths as reason sooner or later would also have been able to find. Revelation is then only temporarily and accidentally needed; it serves only as preparation and education for the general dominion [280] of the Vernunftreligion; it gives only more quickly and more easily what reason otherwise by a longer and more difficult way would have attained. Such is the concept of revelation in Lessing,

Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts 1780, Fichte, Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung 1792, and Kant, Religion usw. 1793. In the third place, as

rationalism is known that theology which denies all supernatural revelation, but nevertheless assumes that God by special arrangements of his

Providence has equipped persons and has paved ways that can bring humanity to a better and purer knowledge of religious truth. Of these

Wegscheider is the principal representative, Instit. theol. I § 12 p. 58, and further Röhr, Henke, Gabler, Paulus, Gesenius, etc. And finally the name of rationalism is also given to that direction which since the middle of the 17th century was called naturalism, in England deism and also was called atheism, materialism, and which, denying all revelation, held the religio naturalis to be perfectly sufficient. To that belong Spinoza, Lud. Meyer,

Voltaire, Rousseau, Reimarus, Nicolai, etc.

The arguments, advanced by this rationalism against revelation, come down to this: Revelation is in the first place impossible on the part of God, for it would imply that God was changeable, that his creation was imperfect and defective and therefore needed improvement; and that He himself, otherwise a Deus otiosus, then only worked when He works in an extraordinary manner. Further, revelation is also impossible on the part of the world, since science has more and more come to the discovery that this is always and everywhere governed by an unbreakable system of laws, which leaves no room for a supernatural intervention of God; science proceeds from this causal connection of things and cannot do otherwise; supranaturalism makes science impossible, puts arbitrariness in place of rule; in proportion as science has also advanced, all phenomena have lost their supranatural character; there even exists no right, against all experience, to hold a phenomenon to be supranatural; le surnaturel serait le surdivin. Subsequently, revelation, even if it had occurred, is nevertheless for the recipient himself and still more for those who live after him,

unrecognizable and unprovable: [281] how is it ever to be decided that a prophecy or a miracle is from God, and not e.g. from the devil, originating?

By what is a revelation recognizable for him who receives it and for those who live later? Such criteria are not to be indicated. They who accept a revelation therefore believe only on human authority, and in the highest and weightiest matters depend on men. Que d'hommes entre Dieu et moi! And finally, revelation conflicts with human reason; for whatever one may say, all revelation that is supra rationem is thereby also contra rationem, it thus suppresses reason and leads to fanaticism; but moreover, if the revelation communicates something that is supra rationem, then it can also never be taken up and assimilated and it always remains as an incomprehended mystery outside our consciousness; and if it communicates something that reason itself could have found, then it is unnecessary, at most gives only earlier and more easily what otherwise would nevertheless have been obtained, and unnecessarily deprives reason of its power and energy. Cf.

Wegscheider, Instit. theol. § 10-12. Bretschneider, Handbuch der Dogm. 4e Aufl. I 188-329. Nitzsch, Lehrb. der ev. Dogm. 141 f. 165.

10. The revelation, which is set down in Holy Scripture, is a troublesome fact for everyone who denies it. For even he who combats its possibility and reality must nevertheless strive after an explanation of its historical origin.

It has not arisen out of fraud, any more than religion. Faith in revelation is not something arbitrary or accidental, which occurs only here or there under special circumstances, but is essentially proper to all religion. The question of revelation is not so simple as rationalism sometimes imagined it. This is already immediately evident from the fact that all attempts, employed from the naturalistic side, to explain the biblical miracle-narratives in a natural way, have thus far suffered shipwreck. If revelation, in all its forms, of

theophany, prophecy, and miracle, is not really supernatural but is only in that sense originating from God, as all activity of man has in Him its ultimate cause; then one is compelled to take refuge either in the so-called material or in the formal interpretation of the miracle-narratives. [282] That is, on the one hand one can leave the facts to a certain extent untouched and accept them as truth; one then seeks to explain these facts from the ignorance of the people concerning the natural causes and from the religious need to ascribe everything directly to God, Spinoza, Tract. theol. pol. cap. 1 en 6. Hase, Dogm. § 19. Leben Jesu § 15. Strauss, Glaub. I 280.

Scholten, Supranat. in verband met Bijbel, Christ. en Prot. 1867, bl. 8 v.; or one explains them physically from unknown natural forces, Kant, Religion ed. Rosenkranz 101. Morus, Epitome Theol. Christ. p. 23. Schweizer,

Glaub. der ev. ref. K. I 324 f.; or psychologically from a particular virtuosity, to sense the future in advance, Bretschneider, Dogm. I S. 300.

Hase, Dogm. § 137, and to heal the sick without means, Weisse, Philos.

Dogm. I S. 115. Ammon, Gesch. des Lebens Jesu 248; or teleologically from such arrangement and ordering of the physical and psychical forces lying in nature, that they bring about an unusual result and incite to recognition of God's providence and to faith in the preacher, Wegscheider,

Inst. Theol. § 48. Bretschneider, Dogm. I 314. Or on the other hand one can seek solution in the formal or genetic explanation, i.e. in a particular conception of the reports concerning the revelation; one then calls to aid the Oriental representation and clothing, and the accommodation of Jesus and the apostles to the popular conceptions, cf. Bretschneider, Syst. Entw. aller in der Dogm. vork. Begriffe, 4e Aufl. S. 135 f. Herzog2 art. Accomodation; or one seeks counsel with the allegorical, Woolston, Discourses on the miracles of our Saviour 1727; or with the natural, Paulus van Heidelberg,

Philol.-krit. u. histor. Commentar über das N. T. 1800-1804. Leben Jesu 1828. Exeg. Handbuch über die 3 ersten Evang. 1830-33; or with the mythical, Eichhorn, Gabler, G. L. Bauer, Strauss, Leben Jesu 1835; or with the symbolic explanation, A. D. Loman, Gids Febr. 1884. Cf. Wegscheider,

Instit. Theol. S. 214. Bretschneider, System. Entw. S. 248 f. Denzinger, Vier Bücher von der relig. Erkenntniss II 156 f. 335 f. 405 f.

But all these explanations have had little success. Scripture simply cannot be interpreted in a naturalistic or rationalistic way. The facts of revelation themselves, which Scripture communicates to us, stand in the way of all such attempts. For although it is true that the revelation in Scripture, in form, has manifold agreement [283] with that to which other religions appeal, yet in principle it stands over against it; it makes between these and itself a definite distinction; it consciously and with complete assurance ascribes its origin solely to an extraordinary working of God. Scripture forbids all soothsaying and sorcery, Num. 19:16, 31, 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:10 v.; Jes. 8:9; Jer. 27:9; Hd. 8:9 v., 13:8 v., 19:13; Apoc. 21:8, 22:15. Prophets and apostles want nothing to do with that. They stand directly opposed to it and do not follow cunningly devised fables, 2 Petr. 1:16. Prophecy was formerly not brought forth by the will of a man, but the H. Spirit has driven the prophets, 2 Petr. 1:21; 1 Cor. 2:11, 12. The miracle is a σημειον of the presence of God. The clear self-consciousness which we encounter everywhere among the prophets, and the completely clear self-testimony which accompanies revelation everywhere in Scripture, offer an insurmountable stumbling block for the naturalistic explanation. Nor can the psychological method Strauss, Glaub. I 77. Kuenen, De profeten I 106 v., do justice to this self-consciousness and self-testimony of prophets and apostles, indeed of Christ himself. It may be gratefully acknowledged that

the modern conception of revelation no longer thinks for a moment of holding the prophets and apostles to be intentional deceivers. But it still cannot escape the conclusion that all these men were poor deluded persons and, in good faith, erring, because they appealed to an alleged revelation and appeared with an imagined divine authority. For the issue is not as though revelation contains only certain facts, whose interpretation it leaves to our insight. But it itself casts a peculiar light upon those facts; it has, so to speak, concerning those facts its own view and its own theory. In the revelation of Scripture, word and fact, prophecy and miracle always go hand in hand. Both are necessary, in order that both consciousness and being may be re-created and the whole cosmos may be redeemed from sin.

The light needs the reality and the reality needs the light, to produce — — the beautiful creation of His grace. To apply the kantian phraseology to a higher subject, without God's acts the words would be empty, without His words the acts would be blind, Dr. Vos, The idea of biblical theology [284] as a science and as a theol. discipline, New-York, Randolph and Co. 1894 p.

15. See also Kuyper, Uit het Woord I 1873 bl. 69-160. Both, word and fact, are in revelation so intimately interwoven that the one cannot be accepted or rejected without the other. Every attempt to explain the facts of revelation naturalistically has therefore, up to now, always ended with the recognition that between the supranatural world-view of Scripture and that of the naturalists a deep chasm yawns and reconciliation is impossible.

Professor Scholten provided a striking example of this. At first he still accepted the utterances of the Johannine Jesus as truth. Then he attempted to explain those utterances according to his altered insights, and to make exegesis serviceable to his heterodox dogmatics. And finally, in 1864, he openly acknowledged that the world-view of the fourth evangelist was

different from his. Het Evangelie naar Johannes 1864 bl. III-VI. Every negative direction ultimately acknowledges that the revelation of Scripture is still conceived and represented most purely in orthodoxy. Radicalism leaves Scripture as it is and has done with revelation. Thereby the question is reduced to its deepest principle. The recognition or non-recognition of revelation is decided by our entire view of life and the world. Not historical criticism but self-criticism, not science but faith, not the head but the heart gives the decisive factor here. From the heart also proceeds the lack of understanding, Mk. 2:22. Our thinking is rooted in our being. Operari sequitur esse (Schopenhauer). Was für eine Philosophie man wähle, hängt davon ab, was für ein Mensch man ist. Unser Denksystem ist oft nur die

Geschichte unseres Herzens (Fichte). That the recognition or nonrecognition of revelation is in the last instance a question of faith is sufficiently proved by the fact that neither of the two, neither the supranatural nor the naturalistic conception, is able to remove all difficulties out of the way or to resolve all objections. The naturalistic view seems to be strong when it takes a few miracle narratives by themselves and isolates them from the whole; but that whole itself, the system of revelation and within it again the person of Christ, remain for it an insoluble riddle and a stone of stumbling. Conversely, the supranatural view has not yet succeeded in inserting all [285] particular facts and words of revelation into the order of the whole. But here there is nevertheless the agreement with revelation in its entirety, the insight into its system, the conception of its mighty harmony. If now the recognition of revelation were a philosophical proposition, it would be relatively of little weight. But a deep religious interest is involved with it. Religion itself is bound up with revelation.

Whoever gives this up also loses religion, which is built upon it. The

revelation of Scripture and the religion of Scripture stand and fall with one another.

11. The worldview which stands over against that of Scripture and in principle must combat all revelation, can best be designated by the name of monism. Monism, both in its pantheistic and in its materialistic form, strives to reduce all forces, substances, and laws that can be observed in nature to one single force, substance, and law. Materialism assumes only qualitatively identical atoms, which everywhere and always operate according to the same mechanical laws and by combination and separation cause all things and phenomena to come into being and to pass away.

Pantheism likewise acknowledges nothing but one single substance, which is the same in all creatures and everywhere modifies and transforms itself according to the same logical laws. Both are animated by the same impulse, by the impulse and the longing for unity, which is proper to the human spirit. But while materialism seeks to find again the unity of substance and law, which prevails in the physical world, in all other, historical, psychical, religious, ethical, etc. phenomena and thus tries to make all sciences into natural science; pantheism attempts to explain all phenomena, also the physical, from the spirit and to convert all sciences into spiritual science.

Both are naturalism, insofar as they perhaps still make room for the supersensible but in any case not for the supernatural, and for science and art, for religion and morality have enough with this cosmos, with the diesseits, Strauss, Der alte u. der neue Glaube, 2e Aufl. I 211 f. E. Haeckel,

Der Monismus als Band zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft, 6e Aufl.

Bonn 1893. Konrad Dieterich, Philosophie u. Naturwissenschaft, ihr neuestes Bündniss und die [286] monistische Weltanschauung, 2tes Ausg.

Freiburg 1885.

Dr.

Stern, Philosophischer und

naturwissenschaftlicher Monismus. T. Pesch, Die grossen Welträthsel, 2e Aufl. Herder, Freiburg II 8 f. Stöckl, Lehrbuch der Philos. II 1887 S. 117 f.

Schanz, Apologie des Christ. I 1887 S. 249 f. The worldview of Scripture and of the whole of Christian theology is a wholly different one. It is not monism but theism, not naturalistic but supranatural. According to this theistic worldview there is a multiplicity of substances, of forces and substances and laws. It does not strive to erase the distinctions of God and world, spirit and matter, psychical and physical, ethical and religious etc. phenomena, but to discover the harmony which holds and binds all things together, and which is an outflow of the creative thought of God. Not sameness or uniformity, but unity in diversity is the goal of its striving. In spite of all pretensions of monism this theistic worldview has right and reason for existence. For monism has not succeeded in reducing all forces and substances and laws to one single one. Materialism runs up against the psychical phenomena (Du Bois Reymond, Die sieben Welträthsel), and pantheism cannot find the transition from thinking to being and does not know what to do with the multiplicity. Being itself is a mystery, a wonder.

That something is, and whence it is, compels wonder from the thinking spirit, and this is therefore rightly called the beginning of philosophy. And the more that being is thought into, the more the wonder increases, for within the circle of being, of the cosmos we see different forces appear, in the mechanical, vegetative, animal, psychical world, and further in the religious and ethical, aesthetic and logical phenomena. Creation shows us an ascending order. The laws of the conservation of force, of causality and of continuity (natura non facit saltus) are indeed interpreted and misused in the service of monism. But nevertheless there appear time and again in nature forces which cannot be explained from the lower. Already in

mechanical nature causality prevails only in a hypothetical sense. Like causes have like effects, but only under like circumstances. In the organic a force appears which does not originate from the inorganic [287]. Schon das

Thier ist ein Wunder gegen die vegetabilische Natur und noch mehr der Geist gegen das Leben, gegen die bloss empfindende Natur, Hegel, Philos. der Rel., Werke XII 256. In the understanding, in the will, in religion, morality, art, science, law, history there are forces at work which essentially differ from the mechanical. The attempt to explain all these phenomena mechanically has thus far proved vain. The spiritual sciences have up to now retained their independent place. Dilthey, Einleitung in die

Geisteswissenschaften I 1883 S. 5 f. Drummond, Das Naturgesetz in der Geisteswelt, Aus dem Engl. Leipzig 1886 S. 18 f. Although unwillingly,

Prof. Land, Inleiding tot de Wijsb. 328 nevertheless must acknowledge that science for the time being is compelled to remain dualistic and even pluralistic.

Each of these forces works according to its own nature, according to its own law and in its own way. The forces differ and therefore also their operations and the way in which they work. The idea of a law of nature arose only gradually. Formerly one understood by lex naturae an ethical rule that was known by nature. Later this term was transferred to nature in a very improper sense, for no one has prescribed those laws to nature and no one is in a position to obey or to transgress them. Hence it is that there still prevails great difference concerning the concept and meaning of the laws of nature. Im 17ten Jahrhundert giebt Gott die Naturgesetze, in 18ten thut es die Natur selbst, und im 19ten besorgen es die einzelnen Naturforscher

(Wundt). But so much is certain, that the so-called laws of nature themselves are no force that exercises dominion over the phenomena, but

nothing other than a, often very defective and always fallible description of the way in which the forces lying in nature work. A law of nature says only that certain forces, under like circumstances, work in the same way, Ed.

Zeller, Vorträge, IIIe Sammlung S. 194 f. Wundt, Philos. Studien III 195 f.

IV 12 f. Hellwald, Culturgeschichte, 3e Aufl. I 32. Hartmann, Philos. des Unbewussten, 9e Aufl. II 96. Lotze, Mikrokosmos, 4e Aufl. I 31 f. II 50 f.

III 13 f. Art. Naturgesetz in Herzog2. The regularity of the phenomena thus rests in the last instance on the unchangeableness of the different forces that work in nature and of [288] the last elements or substances of which it is composed. The laws differ, according as those elements and forces are distinct. The mechanical laws are different from the physical; the logical again different from the ethical and aesthetic. In a physical sense giving makes poorer, in an ethical sense it makes richer. The laws of nature, i.e. of the whole cosmos, of all creature, are therefore also no cordon around the things, so that nothing can penetrate or come out, but only a formula for the way in which, according to our observation, every force works according to its nature. All these elements and forces with the laws dwelling in them are, according to the theistic world-view, maintained from moment to moment by God, who is the last and highest, intelligent and free causality of all things. As creature they have no subsistence in themselves. It is God's omnipresent and eternal power that maintains and governs everything. In Him, in his thought and in his government, lies the unity, the harmony, which holds together and connects all things in the richest diversity and leads them onward to one goal. Thereby there is unitas, mensura, ordo, numerus, modus, gradus, species in the creatures, as Augustine repeatedly says. Aliis dedit esse amplius, aliis minus, atque ita naturas essentiarum gradibus ordinavit, August. de civ. 12, 2. God is present in everything. In

Him all things live and move and are. Nature and history are his work. He always works, Joh. 5:17. Everything reveals God to us. His finger may be more clearly to be noticed by us in the one event than in the other; the pure in heart sees God in all his works. Miracles are therefore absolutely not necessary in order to make us know God as sustainer and ruler of the universe. Everything is his deed. Nothing happens without his will. He is present with his being in all things. And therefore everything is also a revelation, a word, a work of God.

12. With such a worldview a supernatural revelation is absolutely not in conflict. For nature here does not exist for a single moment independently of God, but lives and moves in him. All power that appears in it is derived from Him and works according to the law that He has laid in it. God does not stand outside nature and is not shut off from it by an enclosure of laws, but is present in it and [289] bears it by the word of his power. He works from within, and can cause new powers to appear, which are distinct from the existing ones in nature and operation. And these higher powers do not nullify the lower, but nevertheless take a place of their own alongside and over against it. The human spirit strives at every moment to counteract the lower forces of nature in their operation and to rule over them. The whole of culture is a power by which man rules over nature. Art and science are a triumph of the spirit over matter. Likewise, in revelation, in prophecy and miracle, a new divine power appears, which indeed occupies a place of its own in the cosmos but absolutely does not conflict with the lower powers in their laws. There is no question of a so-called suspension of the laws of nature by the miracles. There is no Durchlöcherung of nature. Thomas already said: quando Deus agit aliquid contra cursum naturae, non tollitur totus ordo universi, sed cursus qui est unius rei ad aliam, de pot. qu. 6 art. 1,

bij Müller, Natur und Wunder 133. Yes, even the ordo causae ad suum effectum is not nullified; although the fire in the furnace does not burn the three young men, in that fire there nevertheless remained the ordo ad comburendum. By the miracle no change is brought about in the powers that lie in nature, nor in the laws according to which they work. The only thing that happens in the miracle is that the operation of the powers present in nature is suspended at a particular point, because another power enters, which works according to a law of its own and produces an operation of its own. Science therefore has nothing to fear from the supranatural. But let every science remain in its domain and not arrogate to itself the right to prescribe the law to the other. It is the right and the duty of natural science, within its area, to seek the natural causes of the phenomena. But let it not rule over philosophy, when this investigates the origin and the destination of things. Let it also acknowledge the right and the independence of religion and theology, and not undermine the foundation on which these rest. For here religious motives for faith in a revelation come to expression, about which natural science as such cannot judge. Also with the various sciences the goal does not lie in uniformity but in [290] harmony. Let theology honor natural science, but itself lay claim to equal treatment. Let each science remain on its own terrain. The erasure of the boundaries has already caused far too much confusion. From that there has also arisen the assertion of Hume, Voltaire, Renan, that never yet has a miracle been sufficiently established, and that constant experience cannot be overthrown by a few testimonies. Renan, Vie de Jésus, p. LI says: nous ne disons pas, le miracle est impossible, nous disons, il n' y a pas eu jusqu'ici de miracle constaté, and refuses to believe in a miracle, so long as not a commission of all kinds of scientific men, physiologists, chemists etc. has investigated such a fact

and after repeated experimentation has established it as a miracle. With such a condition the miracle is judged a priori: for with the miracles of Scripture the opportunity for such an experiment is granted neither to Renan nor to any of us. The miracles belong once and for all to history; and in history a different method applies than in physics. Here the experiment is in its place. But in history we must make do with testimonies. If, however, in the historical domain the method of experiment must be introduced and applied, there is not a single fact that can withstand the test. Then it is the end of all history. Therefore let every science remain on its own terrain and investigate there according to its own nature. With the ear one cannot see, with the ell not weigh, and with the experiment one cannot test revelation,

Vigouroux, Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste, 3e ed. 1890 I 73. II 294.

Furthermore, nature, the cosmos, is still far too much conceived as a machine, which is ready-made and is now driven by one force and always moves according to one law. Deism had this clumsy representation, but still it is unconsciously shared by many and serves in the combating of revelation. But nature, the cosmos, is not a piece of work that is finished and now possesses a certain independence; but it is φυσις, natura in the proper sense, it is always becoming, it finds itself in a continual teleological development, it is led in successive periods toward a divine destination. In such a conception of nature, again, miracles are completely in their place.

Hellwald says on the last [291] page of his Kulturgeschichte, that all life on earth will once perish in the eternal rest of death and then ends with the comfortless words: Dann wird die Erde, ihrer Atmosphäre und Lebewelt beraubt, in mondgleicher Verödung um die Sonne kreisen, wie zuvor, das

Menschengeschlecht aber, seine Kultur, sein Ringen und Streben, seine

Schöpfungen und Ideale sind gewesen. Wozu? Naturally, in a system that ends with such an unanswered question, revelation and miracle would be nothing but an absurdity. But Scripture teaches us that revelation serves for this purpose, to recreate the creation, which was corrupted by sin, into a kingdom of God. Here revelation takes a completely proportionate and teleological place in the world-plan, which God has formed for himself and which He realizes in the course of the times. In that sense Augustine already said, portentum fit non contra naturam sed contra quam est nota natura, de civ. 21,8. c. Faustum 29,2. 26,3. The expression has many times been interpreted in a wrong sense in favor of a theology which tried to understand miracles as the working of a power which is by nature present in man or in nature, or also is restored in him by regeneration or faith. This peculiar conception already occurs in Philo and Neoplatonism, has then repeatedly found resonance with various Christian theologians, with Scotus

Erigena, Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, Böhme, Oetinger, cf. Denzinger, Vier Bücher von der relig. Erk. II. 182 f. 361 f. and is now and then also found in the Vermittelungstheologie, Twesten, Vorles. I. 370 f. II. 171 f.

Martensen, Dogm. § 16 f. Schleiermacher, Glaub. § 13,1 § 129. Sack, Apologetik S. 137 f. Lange, Philos. Dogm. § 64. Saussaye, mijne Theol. van Ch. d. l. S. 36 v. Gunning, Blikken in de openbaring II 37 v. Revelation, inspiration and miracle then belong to the original disposition of human nature. Indeed that disposition has been weakened by sin, but it nevertheless still comes to light in poetic and heroic inspiration, in magnetism and other related phenomena. Along an ethical path, through union with God, through ascetic purification, through regeneration etc., however, this disposition can be renewed and strengthened. All believers are thus actually inspired and can perform miracles. Si humana natura non peccaret eique, [292] qui eam

condiderat, immutabiliter adhaereret, profecto omnipotens esset, Erigena, de div. nat. 4,9. Miracles are according to Zimmer, Ueber den allgem.

Verfall des menschl. Geschlechts III n. 90 f., Zeichen des über die Herrschaft der Natur erhobenen Menschen, in welchem die Herrlichkeit des ersten Menschenpaares vor seiner Sünde dargestellt wird. When the soul is directed in love toward God, says Böhme, so mag sie Wunder machen, was sie will. In a related sense C. Bonnet, Recherches philosophiques sur les preuves du christianisme, Geneve 1771, had prophecy and miracle preformed beforehand in nature and brought about by the working of the ordinary forces of nature. Some theologians in the previous century therefore spoke of rationes seminales, primordiales and radicales of the miracles. But this attempt at explanation of miracles cannot be accepted. It confuses the natural with the supernatural, the supranatural with the religious-ethical and wipes out the boundaries between prophecy and mantics, miracle and magic, inspiration and illumination. Thus also the above-mentioned expression of Augustine may not be explained. By the natura nota he understands nature in our sense. And with a view to this he even says that the miracle is contra naturam, just as Thomas and Voetius later did (above p. 275). But that same miracle has now from the beginning been taken up by God into nature in a broader sense, i.e. into the destination of things determined by God, into the divine world-plan, F. Nitzsch,

Augustinus' Lehre vom Wunder, Berlin 1865. The same thought was later also expressed by Leibniz, Theodicée § 54. 207. God has from the beginning taken up the miracles into his world-plan and brings them about in his time; the miracles are not to be explained par les natures des choses créées, but des raisons d'un ordre supérieur à celui de la nature le portent à les faire. According to Leibniz, therefore, the miracles do not lie, like a

germ, potentially enclosed in the forces of nature, as Nitzsch, Lehrb. der ev.

Dogm. S. 146 explains Leibniz, but are their constituting elements in the world-plan of God. Insofar the miracles very certainly belong to nature.

They do not come in from outside into the existing cosmos, in order to disturb it, but they are taken up in the world-idea itself and serve for the restoration and perfection of fallen nature. Yes, even without sin there would have been place in the world for prophecy and miracle [293]. The supernatural did not first become necessary through the fall. Not revelation and miracle in themselves, only the soteriological character which both now bear, has been caused by sin. Insofar even the miracle is no foreign element that is added to the fallen creation. Revelation and religion, prophecy and miracle are in themselves no dona superaddita. They are completely natural, insofar as they belong to the world-idea of God and to the world-plan, which He in spite of all opposition brings to execution in time.

Nevertheless, revelation constitutes an order of affairs, which is distinct from the ordinary ordo naturae; a system of words and deeds of God, which itself is governed by one principle and appears before our eyes as an organic whole. Revelation is not ein einzelner Akt Gottes in der Zeit, isolated from the whole of nature, Strauss, Glaub. I 274, but is a world in itself, distinct from nature and yet adapted to it, related to it, destined for it.

In this system of revelation, which begins with paradise and ends only in the parousia, much is still obscure and unexplained. Main lines can be drawn. In both the history of the prophecies and of the miracles there is order and progress to be discovered. Revelation too has its own laws and rules. It is the beautiful task of the historia revelationis, to trace these out, and to discover the system that lies hidden in its history. But there are still many facts, which in their proper significance for and connection with the

whole are not yet discerned; still many words and deeds, which cannot be brought under any rule. This should not astonish and must least of all be exploited as a ground for unbelief. The philosophy of nature and of history is also far from finished with its work. It too stands at every moment before cruces, which it does not know how to explain. Yet for that reason no one doubts the unity of nature and the plan of history. Compared with these, revelation is even in a favorable case. Its main lines are fixed. As it begins in paradise and ends in the parousia, it forms a grand history, which spreads light over the whole of nature and history and therein, according to Augustine's word, preserves the extraordinary by the ordinary from excess

[294] and ennobles the ordinary by the extraordinary, bij Müller, Natur und Wunder 180. Without it we walk in darkness, we go to meet the eternal rest of death and we have no answer to the question, for what purpose everything has been. But with it we find ourselves in a world, which, in spite of all sinful power, is being led to meet restoration and perfection.

Israel the preparation, Christ the center, the church the outworking, the parousia the crown — that is the cord, which binds the facts of revelation together.

Therefore faith in special revelation is in the end actually one with faith in another and better world than this one. If this world, with the powers and laws naturally indwelling in it, is the only and the best, then we must, of course, make do with this one as well. Then the leges naturae are equal to the decreta Dei, then this world is the Son, the Logos, the proper image of God, then in the ordo naturae, in which we live, there is already the full, adaequate revelation of God's wisdom and power, of his goodness and holiness. What right is there then to expect that the There will nevertheless one day become Here, that the ideal will pass over into reality, that the good

will triumph over the evil, and that the Welt der Werthe will once rule over the Welt der Wirklichkeit? Evolution does not bring us there. Nihil fit ex nihilo. Out of this world no paradise comes. What does not lie in it cannot proceed out of it. If there is no Jenseits, no God who stands above nature, no ordo supernaturalis, then to sin, to darkness, to death belongs the last word. The revelation of Scripture makes known to us another world of holiness and glory, which descends into this fallen world, not as doctrine only but also as divine δυναμις, as history, as reality, as a harmonious system of words and deeds together, and which lifts this world up out of its fall and out of the status peccati, through the status gratiae, and leads it onward into the status gloriae. Revelation is the coming of God to humanity in order to dwell with it eternally. Literature on the miracles besides those already mentioned: Köstlin, Jahrb. f. deutsche Wiss. 1864, 2tes Heft, S.

205-270 and art. Wunder in Herzog2. Nitzsch, Syst. der chr. Lehre § 34.

Twesten, Vorles I. 366 f. Martensen, Dogm. § 16 f. Lange, Dogm. I 471 f.

Rothe, Zur Dogm. 80 f. Gloatz, [295] Ueber das Wunder, Stud. u. Kr. 1886, 3tes Heft. Dorner, Glaub. I 569 f. 583 f. Philippi, Kirchl. Glaub. I 25 f.

Saussaye, mijne Theol. 36 v. Oosterzee, Dogm. I 205 v. Kuyper, Uit het Woord II 69 v. III 114 v. Encycl. II 369 v. 446 v. Müller, Natur und Wunder,

Strassburg, Herder 1892 and the literature cited there S. XV f., Gondal, Le miracle, Paris, Roger et Chernoviz 1894.

↑ Back to top